ghl_calendar_service_location_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds endpoint and OAuth scopes but does not disclose expected response format or pagination behavior. Given robust annotations, this is adequate but not enhanced.

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 short but includes repetitive text ('Get Service Locations' and 'Get all service locations') and technical endpoint details that may not be needed for decision-making. It is concise but not optimally structured.

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?

With no output schema, the description fails to mention that the tool returns a list of service location objects. It does not explain the role of `locationId` or any pagination. For a simple list tool, it provides minimal context.

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 the `locationId` parameter described as 'Location ID'. The description adds no additional meaning, such as clarifying it is the parent location ID. Baseline 3 is appropriate per rubric when schema coverage is high, but a small missed opportunity.

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 'Get Service Locations' and 'Get all service locations', clearly indicating a list operation. It implicitly distinguishes from sibling `ghl_calendar_service_location_get` which retrieves a single item. However, the phrase 'all service locations' is ambiguous because the required `locationId` parameter suggests scoping to a parent location.

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., get, create, update, delete). It does not explain that this tool lists service locations for a given parent location ID, nor when not to use it. The endpoint and OAuth scopes are technical details but not usage guidance.

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