ghl_blog_check_url_slug_exists

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to reiterate safety. It adds the HTTP method (GET) and OAuth scopes, which is helpful but does not describe the return value or behavior when a slug exists or not. The lack of output schema makes the description incomplete for full transparency.

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 somewhat verbose, including endpoint path, version header, and OAuth scopes which could be considered clutter for an agent. The first line 'Check url slug' is redundant with the title. It could be more concise and front-loaded.

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 lack of output schema and zero schema descriptions, the description should fully explain the tool's usage and return value. It fails to describe what response the agent should expect (e.g., boolean, status code). The context of being a pre-publish validation is helpful, but the tool is not complete enough for confident invocation.

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 0%, placing full burden on the description to explain parameters. The description only hints at where to find postId but does not explain urlSlug or locationId at all. With three parameters (one optional), this is insufficient for an agent to understand required inputs.

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 it checks blog slug validation needed before publishing. It identifies the verb 'check' and resource 'url slug existence', distinguishing it from other blog tools like creating or listing posts. The intended purpose is unambiguous.

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 indicates the tool should be used before publishing a blog post, which provides a use context. However, it does not compare with alternative blog tools (e.g., the listing or creation endpoints) nor explicitly state when not to use it. Guidance is present but not robust.

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