ghl_calendar_service_booking_get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds the HTTP method (GET) and OAuth scopes (calendars/events.readonly), which reinforce the read-only nature but provide marginal additional behavioral insight.

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 relatively concise but has minor redundancy: the first two sentences essentially repeat the same idea. Overall, it is front-loaded with the purpose and includes useful technical details.

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 operation with one required parameter and comprehensive annotations, the description is fairly complete. It includes endpoint, version, and OAuth scopes. However, it does not hint at the return value, which could be helpful given the lack of an output schema.

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% with a single parameter (bookingId) that has both a description and example. The description does not add further parameter semantics beyond what is already in the schema, so the baseline score of 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 'get' and the resource 'service booking by ID'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like ghl_calendar_service_booking_list and ghl_calendar_service_booking_update by implying retrieval of a single resource, but does not explicitly differentiate.

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 provides endpoint and OAuth scopes but no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list or update. No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use advice is given.

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