ghl_affiliate_get

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false. The description adds behavioral context: the endpoint, version header, source, and required OAuth scopes. This information aids the agent in understanding invocation requirements beyond 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 description is extremely concise: a title, one sentence summarizing purpose, then endpoint and OAuth details. No redundant information, and all content 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 simple read-by-ID tool with full annotations and complete parameter schema, the description provides all necessary context (purpose, endpoint, authentication). No output schema is needed for this straightforward operation.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for both required parameters (locationId, affiliateId). The description does not add any additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'Get Affiliate' and 'Retrieve a single affiliate by id for a location.' It specifies the verb (retrieve) and resource (affiliate by ID and location), distinguishing it from sibling tools like ghl_affiliate_list which lists multiple affiliates.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. While the name and description imply single-affiliate retrieval, it doesn't mention contexts where ghl_affiliate_list would be more appropriate or provide exclusion criteria.

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