Get custom object schema

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

Annotations already declare `readOnlyHint: true` and `openWorldHint: true`, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds a small behavioral detail by noting the fetch 'including its properties', which clarifies the output scope, but otherwise does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as error handling or availability of the schema.

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, compact sentence that front-loads the action and includes an example key. There is no filler or redundancy; every word contributes to specifying the tool's purpose.

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 simple read-only fetch with two well-documented parameters and helpful annotations, the description is largely complete. The main minor gap is the absence of guidance on what happens when the key is invalid or not found, and no reference to the related list tool for discovery, but the core call information is adequately covered.

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%: the schema already documents both `schemaKey` and `locationId` with defaults and examples. The description merely repeats the key format example and adds no new semantic meaning beyond what the parameter descriptions already provide, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ('Fetch a custom object schema') and the resource ('by key') with a concrete example (`custom_objects.podcast_episode`), making the tool's purpose evident. It distinguishes from the sibling `ghl_list_object_schemas` by emphasizing singular lookup by key, though it does not explicitly name or contrast that sibling.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives such as `ghl_list_object_schemas` for discovering available keys. Usage is only implied by the 'by key' phrasing and the example, which is insufficient for routing an agent between this and the sibling list tool.

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