ghl_association_get_by_id

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds the specific HTTP method (GET), endpoint path, required OAuth scopes (associations.readonly), and API version. This contextualizes the behavioral traits 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 (three lines) and front-loads the core purpose. It efficiently includes endpoint details and OAuth scopes. No superfluous content.

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?

Given no output schema, the description should explain what the response contains or its structure, but it does not. It also omits prerequisites, error conditions, or pagination. While annotations cover safety, the description is incomplete for a retrieval tool.

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?

There is only one required parameter (associationId). The description implies it is the identifier to look up, which aligns with the parameter name. However, with 0% schema description coverage, the description does not elaborate on the format, constraints, or examples for the associationId. It is adequate but lacks detail.

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 association by ID' and specifies the types (SYSTEM_DEFINED / USER_DEFINED). The verb 'get' and resource 'association by ID' are unambiguous, distinguishing it from sibling tools like ghl_association_get_by_key_name or ghl_association_get_by_object_key.

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 mentions it can retrieve both system-defined and user-defined associations, but it does not provide guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives like ghl_association_get_by_key_name or ghl_association_get_relations_by_record_id. No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use advice.

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