ghl_agent_studio_get_managed

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, but the description adds meaningful behavior beyond them: the exact endpoint, version header, source spec, OAuth scope, token type, and the precise 404 conditions. That 404/permission context is exactly the kind of disclosure annotations don't carry.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose and the 404 caveat, followed by endpoint and auth metadata. The Endpoint/version/source line is somewhat infrastructural but plausibly useful for debugging; nothing is egregiously padded.

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 2-param read tool with full schema coverage and annotations, this covers purpose, edge cases, auth, and endpoint. The one gap is that 'public metadata' is not further described, but with no output schema a rough characterization is acceptable.

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% and both parameters (managedAgentId, locationId) are documented in the schema with examples. The description adds only the implicit note that locationId must be an authorized sub-account, 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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Get a published Managed Agent") and narrows scope with "public metadata for a published production Managed Agent". It is distinguishable from siblings like ghl_agent_studio_get_by_id or ghl_agent_studio_list_managed by the 'published/production' qualifier, though it never names those alternatives 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?

The description supplies real usage context: it works only on published production agents, returns 404 for unknown/unpublished/cross-location IDs, and requires a Sub-Account token. However, it never says when to prefer this over the sibling get_by_id or list_managed tools, leaving the routing decision to inference.

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