objects_get_object_by_location_id

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds that it retrieves all objects for a location, which is essentially the function. It does not disclose nuances like pagination, response size limits, or empty-list behavior. This is acceptable given the simple read-only nature, but it adds little beyond the annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that states the core function with no superfluous wording. It is appropriately concise and immediately understandable.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple retrieval tool with one optional parameter and read-only annotations, the description is largely sufficient. It implies a collection result ('all objects') and the default location behavior is covered in the schema. However, it does not mention response format or limitations, which would assist an agent, but the lack of an output schema is mitigated by the straightforward nature of the operation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema fully documents the one parameter (locationId) with its description and default behavior (defaults to GHL_LOCATION_ID when omitted). Since schema coverage is 100%, the description does not need to add parameter details. It provides no additional semantic meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'Get all objects for a location' clearly states the action (get), the resource (objects, likely custom object records), and the scope (by location). It distinguishes from sibling tools like objects_get_record_by_id (single record) and objects_search_object_records (search with filters) by implying a bulk fetch for a location.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as objects_search_object_records or objects_get_record_by_id. The description does not mention any conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.