gold_ghl_appointments_calendar

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a read-only listing operation ('List') and surfaces important access constraints ('BYOK', 'PAID ONLY $39'). However, it does not disclose response shape, pagination, rate limits, or what happens when optional parameters are omitted, leaving meaningful behavioral gaps.

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 first sentence is front-loaded and efficient: it states the core action and scope. The additional fragments 'BYOK' and 'PAID ONLY $39' are concise and convey real constraints, though their cryptic phrasing could be clearer. No meaningless filler is present.

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 relatively simple two-parameter read-only tool, the description is minimally viable: it names the operation, the resource, the account scope, and key access conditions. However, without an output schema or annotations, it should better explain what the returned calendars/appointments look like, how days_ahead applies, and whether a location/sub-account must already be selected.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It implicitly connects 'sub-account' to location_id and 'upcoming' to days_ahead, adding some meaning beyond the schema's bare field names and defaults. Yet it never explicitly documents how days_ahead behaves, whether location_id is required in practice, or the impact of omitting either parameter.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'List calendars and upcoming appointments for a sub-account.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from most siblings and avoids vague or tautological phrasing. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from any particular sibling tool, and the appended 'BYOK. PAID ONLY $39.' adds access/commercial context rather than sharpening the core purpose.

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 implies when to use the tool: whenever a user needs calendars or upcoming appointments for a sub-account. But it provides no explicit when-not-to-use guidance, no alternative tool references, and no conditions such as requiring a selected location or active GoHighLevel connection. The BYOK and paid-only notes hint at prerequisites but do not explain them.

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