ghl_brand_board_get_by_location

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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/openWorld, but the description adds real context beyond them: Sub-Account token requirement, the brand-boards/design-kit.readonly OAuth scope, and pagination semantics for full result sets. It omits any sense of result shape or empty-state behavior, keeping it below 5.

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 deprecation warning is front-loaded in brackets, then purpose, endpoint, auth, scopes and pagination in a tight block. The sentence-count is justified, though the bracketed caveat is verbose enough to slightly dilute the opening.

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 list endpoint with no output schema, it covers the things an agent needs to call it successfully: location scoping, token type, required scope, and paging. It doesn't mention the search/deleted filters the schema exposes or the default page size, a minor gap.

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 80%, so the schema already documents limit, offset, search and deleted. The description only reiterates limit/offset as 'pagination params' and says nothing about search or deleted, adding no meaning beyond the structured fields – baseline 3.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get/Retrieves all Brand Boards') plus the scoping axis ('for a specific location'), which cleanly separates it from the sibling ghl_brand_board_get_by_id. The endpoint line reinforces the exact resource path.

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?

Explicitly flags that this is a legacy fallback absent from live v3 docs and advises 'prefer a current equivalent', which is genuine when-to-use guidance including a caution. It falls short of 5 because it never names the specific replacement tool, leaving the agent to search for it.

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