Describe a GHL endpoint

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds useful behavioral context by enumerating what the tool returns: input schema, required fields, auth scopes, and HTTP details. Potential error or formatting behavior is not described, but this is minor for a read-only introspection tool.

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 focused sentence that front-loads the return payload and scopes the tool with 'for one endpoint by tool name.' There is no filler, repetition, or extraneous detail.

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 one-parameter, read-only introspection tool, this description covers what an agent needs: what the tool returns and how to identify the target endpoint. There is no output schema, so the listed return categories are sufficient, and missing error semantics are an acceptable gap at this complexity.

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 coverage is 100%, and the schema already explains that 'name' is 'Tool name from ghl_search_endpoints.' The description repeats 'by tool name' but adds no new parameter semantics, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the semantic weight.

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 states a specific action ('Return') and a concrete object ('full input schema, required fields, auth scopes, and HTTP details for one endpoint'). It clearly distinguishes this introspection tool from sibling tools like ghl_search_endpoints and ghl_call_endpoint without requiring the reader to open the schema.

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 conveys a clear use case: obtain schema, auth, and HTTP details for a named endpoint. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the parameter description 'Tool name from ghl_search_endpoints' gives workflow context, and the tool's meta-role is obvious from its name and siblings. No exclusions are stated, but the intended usage is clear.

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