ghl_blog_check_url_slug_exists

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds that a Sub-Account (location) token is required and names the OAuth scope blogs/check-slug.readonly, which is real operational context. It does not describe the shape of the answer returned (e.g. a boolean exists flag), which is the remaining behavioral gap.

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 functional sentence and the usage cue are front-loaded and the endpoint/auth metadata is compact. The leading "Check url slug" line restates the name and title rather than earning its place, a small redundancy in an otherwise tight definition.

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 simple read-only existence check, the description covers purpose, timing, endpoint, token type, and scope. There is no output schema and the description does not say what the response contains, which is the one thing an agent still has to discover by calling it.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents urlSlug, locationId, and the postId exclusion; the description only implies the slug and location scoping. It adds nothing about the postId exclude-from-check semantics or slug format constraints, so 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?

The second sentence gives a precise verb and resource: it checks whether a blog post url slug is already in use for the location. That distinguishes it cleanly from the mutation siblings like ghl_blog_post_create and ghl_blog_update_post, which are the tools an agent might otherwise confuse it with.

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?

It states the timing explicitly: "Call it before publishing a blog post," which ties the check to the create/publish workflow. It does not name a specific alternative tool or say when the check can be skipped, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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