Ghl Call

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the critical side-effect: non-GET methods WRITE to the live account and are refused when GHL_READ_ONLY is enabled. It does not mention auth, rate limits, or error behavior, but the most important mutation/read-only trait is covered.

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?

Three short sentences with no filler: purpose, usage guidance, and safety warning. Each sentence earns its place and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 generic passthrough tool, the description plus a fully documented 6-parameter schema and an output schema cover what an agent needs: valid endpoint source, when to use it, and write-safety behavior. No critical operational context is missing.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by pointing to docs/ENDPOINTS.md as the source of valid paths and by explaining the behavioral meaning of non-GET methods, which helps agents reason about method and path parameters beyond the schema.

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 identifies this as a 'Generic passthrough to any internal endpoint listed in docs/ENDPOINTS.md', which is a specific verb+resource. It also distinguishes itself from the many dedicated sibling tools by stating it is for anything 'without a dedicated tool'.

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?

It explicitly says when to use it: 'Use it for anything without a dedicated tool.' This also implies when not to use it, and the warning about non-GET methods writing to the live account and being refused under GHL_READ_ONLY gives clear decision-relevant context.

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