ghl_affiliate_validate_customer_lead

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint true and destructive false, so the description is not contradicted. It adds genuine context the annotations lack: the HTTP endpoint, the v3 version header, the requirement for a Sub-Account (location) token, and the affiliate-manager.readonly scope. It does not describe what the validation returns, which is the one meaningful omission.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first line, followed by terse operational metadata. The endpoint/source/version line is somewhat boilerplate-heavy but not padded with 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?

Auth model, scope, token requirement, and endpoint are all disclosed for a simple read-only validation call. With no output schema, the description ideally would state what the validation returns (e.g., a boolean/exists flag), which is a real but minor gap for a tool whose entire value is the answer.

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%, so all four parameters are already documented in the schema. The endpoint template implies locationId and affiliateId are path identifiers, but campaignId and email are not mentioned anywhere in the description, so it adds little 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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Check whether a lead already exists for an affiliate customer.' This clearly distinguishes it from the mutating sibling ghl_affiliate_create_customer_lead, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied — an agent can infer this is a pre-check before creating a lead, but the description never says when to call it versus ghl_affiliate_create_customer_lead or ghl_affiliate_list_customers, and gives no exclusion conditions.

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