ghl_association_get_by_key_name

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds the HTTP method (GET) and OAuth scopes, but doesn't reveal additional behavioral traits like response structure or pagination. Does not contradict 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 includes a note about renaming and endpoint details, which adds context but could be more concise. It's not excessively long, but the renaming note is extraneous for usage. Front-loaded with the primary purpose.

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 the simplicity (2 params, no output schema) and the read-only nature, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks guidance on return format and does not explain the locationId parameter. With many sibling tools, more context on when to use this over others would improve completeness.

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?

The input schema has 2 required parameters (key_name, locationId) with 0% description coverage. The description only implies the purpose of key_name but does not explain locationId or provide any additional meaning beyond the schema. With only 2 params and no enums, the description should at least clarify the role of each parameter.

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 the tool retrieves an association key by its key name, distinguishing it from sibling tools like ghl_association_get_by_id and ghl_association_get_by_object_key. The verb 'Get' and resource 'association key' are specific.

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 versus alternatives. The description lacks context for selecting this tool over other association retrieval methods, such as by ID or object key. The OAuth scopes are mentioned but not as a usage discriminator.

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