gold_setup_check

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavior disclosure. It goes beyond stating the effect by explicitly constraining output to key names and 'never values', which is a meaningful privacy/security guarantee for agent decision-making. It also promises 'the exact next step', setting an expectation about the tool's advisory behavior.

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 tight and front-loaded: the imperative 'run this FIRST' appears immediately, followed by a compact enumeration of the three kinds of outputs and the parenthetical safety guarantee. Every element earns its place with no filler or redundancy.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema diagnostic of low complexity, the description supplies everything an agent needs: when to run it, what it reports, what it deliberately withholds, and what it recommends next. There is no meaningful missing context for correct 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 tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is vacuously 100%, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description appropriately focuses on output semantics instead of parameters, telling an agent what the check reveals rather than attempting to document nonexistent 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?

The description clearly identifies this as the 'SETUP CHECK' diagnostic for GoHighLevel Gold and names its concrete outputs: license tier, API key presence, and the next step. This distinguishes it sharply from the operational sibling tools (conversations, workflows, contacts, appointments), which all perform domain actions rather than environment preflight.

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 instruction 'run this FIRST' is an explicit temporal usage signal that establishes this tool as the entry point to the sibling suite. It does not name when-not-to-use conditions or direct alternatives, but as a zero-parameter first-run diagnostic, the ordering instruction is sufficient guidance for an agent.

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