gold_ghl_location_switcher

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it does add substantive context: 'Agency mode,' 'list every sub-account your key reaches,' 'BYOK,' and 'PAID ONLY $39.' The verbs 'list' and 'inspect' imply read-only behavior, though it never explicitly states whether the active location changes despite the 'switcher' name.

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?

Three short fragments deliver mode, capability, auth model, and pricing without filler. The core behavior is front-loaded in the first clause, so an agent grasps the essential function immediately.

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 single-optional-parameter tool, the description covers invocation choice, key scope, auth requirement, and payment restriction, with return hints for the inspect case. The main remaining gap is the lack of explicit output details for the list case and no statement about whether switching/state changes occur, but overall it is enough for selection and basic invocation.

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 single parameter location_id is already covered by the schema ('omit to list all reachable'), and the description reinforces that by contrasting 'list every sub-account' with 'inspect one.' It also adds what inspection returns — name/timezone/providers — which goes beyond the schema text.

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 specific verbs 'list' and 'inspect' against a clear resource: sub-accounts/locations reachable by the key. It names the return focus (name/timezone/providers) and is easily distinguished from sibling tools about conversations, workflows, contacts, appointments, tags, and pipelines.

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 'Agency mode' label and 'BYOK' clearly establish the intended context: use this when operating with an agency key and needing to enumerate or examine sub-accounts. It does not name alternative tools or explicitly state exclusions, so it falls just short of a 5.

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