Search GHL endpoints

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

Annotations already mark this as readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral context beyond that: it searches across all 576 endpoints in 41 modules, includes endpoints not exposed as dedicated tools, and returns tool names intended for ghl_describe_endpoint / ghl_call_endpoint. It stops short of describing search matching semantics, but that is a minor gap given the annotations.

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 core purpose and output are front-loaded in two efficient sentences. The long module list adds bulk but is genuinely useful as a reference for the module parameter and for understanding the tool's coverage. No filler or tautological phrasing is present.

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 search/discovery tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains the return value ('tool names') and how to chain it with ghl_describe_endpoint / ghl_call_endpoint. It also makes the scope explicit with the 576-endpoint/41-module framing. A more complete description might clarify how keyword matching works, but the schema and annotations fill most remaining gaps.

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 75%, with query, limit, and module already documented via descriptions and examples. The description adds useful parameter-related context by listing the valid module names and clarifying that the input is a keyword search returning tool names. The method parameter is an enum with obvious values, so no further description is essential.

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 ('Find GoHighLevel API endpoints by keyword'), a concrete scope ('all 576 endpoints in 41 modules'), and the output ('Returns tool names'). This clearly distinguishes it from the data-specific sibling search tools and directly connects to the ghl_describe_endpoint / ghl_call_endpoint workflow.

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 indicates when this tool is valuable by noting it covers endpoints 'including ones not loaded as dedicated tools', implying discovery use when no dedicated tool exists. It also names the downstream tools to use with the results, giving a clear workflow. It does not explicitly say when not to use it or when a dedicated sibling search tool should be preferred, but the context is strong.

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