ghl_custom_values_get

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'Get,' which implies a read operation, but it does not mention safety implications, return format, pagination, error behavior, or any side effects. This is insufficient for a tool with zero annotation support.

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, concise sentence that directly states the purpose without any filler or redundancy. It is appropriately minimal for a tool with one parameter.

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 description is too sparse for a tool with no output schema and no annotations. It does not explain what custom values are, what the response looks like, or how to handle the locationId default behavior. The schema itself has a contradiction (required vs. omitted default), which is not addressed in the description, leaving the agent without crucial context.

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 100% because the only parameter, locationId, is described. The tool description itself adds no additional meaning about the parameter. The baseline of 3 applies since the schema handles the parameter documentation, though the schema's note about omitting locationId contradicts the required flag.

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 action ('Get') and resource ('custom values') scoped to a location, which distinguishes it from sibling tools about other entities like pipelines or knowledge bases. However, 'custom values' is somewhat vague without further 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no mention of prerequisites, and no exclusions. The only context is the phrase 'for a location,' which implies a use case but does not explicitly state it.

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