ghl_book_appointment

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the scope requirement and the ProofLink sealing behavior, but doesn't detail side effects, reversibility, or success/failure 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 brief and front-loaded with the main action, but repeats the ProofLink sealing information in both sentences, which is redundant.

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?

Given no annotations, no output schema, and 4 parameters with no descriptions, the description leaves many gaps: no return value explanation, no time format, no indication of how to handle failures. It covers only the basic purpose and one side effect.

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 input schema has 4 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the description provides no parameter details whatsoever. It fails to explain what contact_id, calendar_id, start_time, end_time mean or their formats.

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 verb+resource: 'Book a calendar appointment for a GHL contact.' It also notes it seals a ProofLink receipt, distinguishing it from sibling GHL tools like ghl_create_contact or ghl_send_email.

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 does not provide explicit when/when-not usage or alternatives. It implies usage via its clear purpose but only adds a scope requirement, not guidance on selecting it over other tools.

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