List businesses

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety and non-exhaustive nature of the operation. The description adds the location scoping and the fact that these are company records, but it does not describe pagination, sorting, or response shape, which would add more behavioral context.

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, tight sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then narrows the scope. There is no redundant wording or filler.

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 list operation with one optional, well-documented parameter and readOnly/openWorld annotations, the description is largely sufficient. It could mention that the result is a collection or note pagination, but the name and phrasing already convey the list semantics.

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%: locationId is already documented as 'GHL Location (sub-account) ID. Defaults to GHL_LOCATION_ID.' The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, 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 states a specific verb ('List'), a clear resource ('business (company) records'), and a scope ('in a location'). It is immediately distinguishable from siblings like ghl_get_business by the plural 'list' and the location qualifier.

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 clearly implies this tool is for retrieving multiple business records within a location, while ghl_get_business is available for a single record. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it correctly.

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