ghl_calendar_service_get

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, which cover safety and idempotency. The description adds the OAuth scopes and endpoint version, providing minor additional behavioral context but no significant new insights.

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 two sentences plus endpoint and OAuth info. It is extremely concise, front-loads the purpose, and contains no redundant text.

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 getter tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential information: purpose, endpoint, and required OAuth scopes. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to use correctly, though return structure is not described.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage (the single parameter serviceId is documented in the schema), the description adds no extra meaning about the parameter. The baseline of 3 is appropriate, as the description does not compensate with additional parameter details.

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 title 'Get Service by ID' and description clearly specify the action (get) and resource (service by ID). It distinguishes from sibling tools like ghl_calendar_service_create, ghl_calendar_service_list, etc., which operate on the same resource differently.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., listing services) or when not to use it. There is no mention of prerequisites or scenario-specific advice.

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