ghl_brand_board_get_by_id

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

The description adds important behavior beyond the annotations: it requires a Sub-Account token, names the required OAuth scope, specifies the Version header, and discloses the legacy/deprecation status. These are operationally significant details an agent could not infer from `readOnlyHint`, `idempotentHint`, or `openWorldHint` alone.

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 legacy warning is appropriately front-loaded, followed by the operation summary, endpoint, auth requirement, and scopes. It is compact and structured, though the repeated 'Get Brand Board / Retrieves...' phrasing is slightly redundant.

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 read-only get-by-ID tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers everything needed: purpose, endpoint, auth token type, OAuth scope, and legacy status. There are no material omissions.

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 coverage is 100%, so both `locationId` and `id` are already documented in the input schema. The description confirms the path structure but adds no further syntax, constraints, or format details beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb and resource: it retrieves a specific Brand Board by ID. It also gives the exact endpoint, making the object being fetched unambiguous. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling `ghl_brand_board_get_by_location`, so it falls short of a 5.

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 gives strong contextual guidance by marking the endpoint as a legacy fallback, noting it is absent from current v3 docs, and warning that removal is expected. The phrase 'prefer a current equivalent' tells the agent to avoid it when possible, though it does not name the specific alternative.

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