list_associations

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

readOnlyHint=true already covers the safety profile, so the description earns credit for going further: it discloses the return payload (association types and cardinality) and that results are implicitly scoped to the current location's contacts. Given there is no output schema, this return-shape disclosure is genuinely additive; only pagination/volume behavior is unaddressed.

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?

Two tight sentences, zero filler, with the core purpose front-loaded and the return content immediately after. Every clause earns its place.

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 no-parameter list tool without an output schema, the description covers scope (current location, contacts) and return content (association types, cardinality), which is most of what an agent needs. It stops short of describing result volume, ordering, or how association types map to objects, so a small gap remains.

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 tool takes zero parameters and declares additionalProperties=false, so there is no parameter semantics for the description to explain. The baseline for a parameterless tool is 4, and nothing in the text misleads about inputs.

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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (object associations) plus the scoping domain (contacts in the current GoHighLevel location) and what is returned (association types and cardinality). No sibling tool overlaps with associations, but the description never names or differentiates against alternatives, so this lands just short of a 5.

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?

The description explains what the tool returns but gives no guidance on when to reach for it versus the many other list_* siblings. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative routes mentioned, leaving usage entirely to inference from the name.

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