ghl_agent_studio_list_managed

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds genuinely new operational context — required sub-account token, the managed-agents.readonly OAuth scope, the endpoint and v3 version header, and the result-set filtering behavior. It stops short of describing rate limits or failure modes.

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 correctly: the distinguishing scope is the first line, before the endpoint/auth metadata. The endpoint path, source file, and version header are boilerplate for this API family but still earn marginal place for request construction; overall compact and scannable.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of stating what comes back, and it does state that only published-production agents are returned per sub-account. Auth, scope, and pagination are all covered; the item shape is left unspecified, which is a minor gap for a list endpoint.

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 all four parameters are already documented in structured form. The description only reiterates skip/limit as pagination params and adds no syntax or default guidance, and it never mentions the 'query' search parameter at all — baseline 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?

States a specific verb (list) and resource (Managed Agents) plus a real scoping qualifier — only agents with a published production version — which is the key differentiator from ghl_agent_studio_list and ghl_agent_studio_get_managed. It never names those siblings explicitly, so an agent must infer the contrast from the 'published' qualifier alone.

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 'published only' scope implies when to reach for this over the unfiltered list, and the closing line gives concrete pagination guidance ('pass skip, limit to page through full result sets'). But there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement or named alternative, so the routing is left to inference.

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