ghl_brand_board_get_design_kit

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context beyond annotations: the exact endpoint, required Sub-Account token, and OAuth scope, which helps with auth and invocation expectations.

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 content is front-loaded and segmented cleanly into purpose, endpoint, auth, and scope. The opening 'Get Design Kit' line is somewhat redundant with the immediately following 'Get a design kit by ID,' but the rest is efficient.

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 two-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and rich annotations, the description gives enough context to call it correctly: endpoint, token type, and scope. It does not describe the returned design-kit object, but that is a minor gap for a retrieval wrapper.

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 both locationId and designKitId are already documented in the schema. The description reinforces the resource path but adds no new syntax, constraints, or examples beyond what the schema provides.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get a design kit by ID.' The 'by ID' qualifier and endpoint path make it distinguishable from list_design_kits and other brand-board operations without opening sibling schemas.

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 implies usage by saying it retrieves a design kit by ID and supplies prerequisites. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this versus ghl_brand_board_list_design_kits or ghl_brand_board_get_by_location, leaving the routing choice partly inferential.

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