ghl_get_location

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only says 'Get details' with no mention of what data is returned, potential errors, auth implications, or read-only nature beyond the verb. The tool is likely a safe read, but this is not disclosed.

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 sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the action and object, making it easily scannable.

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?

The tool is simple with no parameters and no output schema, so the description could benefit from mentioning what details are returned (e.g., name, address, phone). Without that, it is minimally viable but leaves the agent uncertain about the return payload. The lack of annotations increases the burden on the description, which it only partially meets.

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?

There are zero parameters, and the schema is an empty object, so no parameter documentation is needed. The baseline of 4 applies because there is nothing to compensate for; the description need not address parameters.

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 clearly states the tool gets details about the current GHL location/sub-account, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like ghl_get_location_tags and other getters by focusing on the location context.

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?

Usage is implied: use when you need details about the current location. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this over alternatives or any exclusions, which is acceptable for such a simple getter but still a gap.

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