ghl_association_get_by_object_key

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, making the safety profile clear. The description adds that the tool retrieves associations for specific object types (contacts, custom objects, opportunities) but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like return structure or rate limits. It complements annotations without contradicting them.

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?

Description is moderately concise but includes extraneous details (e.g., renaming history, exact endpoint, OAuth scopes) that may not be necessary for selection or invocation. The key information is front-loaded but could be trimmed for clarity.

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 and 0% parameter description coverage, the description fails to explain what the tool returns, the meaning of an association, or how to properly use the objectKey parameter. Essential invocation context is missing, making it incomplete for an AI agent.

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?

Input schema has 0% description coverage for its two parameters (objectKey, locationId). The description does not explain these parameters, their formats, or how to construct valid values. The schema provides examples but no semantic meaning, leaving a significant gap for correct invocation.

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?

Description clearly states 'Get association by object keys' and lists example object types (contacts, custom objects, opportunities). It is specific about the verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this from other association retrieval tools like get_by_id or get_by_key_name, relying on the name to imply distinction.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as ghl_association_get_by_id or ghl_association_get_by_key_name. The description includes endpoint and OAuth scope info but lacks context for appropriate invocation or exclusions.

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