ghl_chat_widget_get_public_config

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds the critical behavioral context that this is a public endpoint and requires no authentication, which goes beyond what annotations provide. This is significant for the agent's decision-making.

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 begins with a verbose auto-generated name collision note that is irrelevant for an agent selecting the tool. The key purpose ('public widget-embed config fetch') is buried. It contains multiple disconnected sentences and could be streamlined to front-load the essential information.

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 only vaguely states 'Returns widget configuration by ID.' It lacks detail on the response structure. However, for a simple read-only config fetch tool with good annotations, it is minimally adequate but not fully informative.

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 50%: only 'id' has a description ('The chat widget ID'). The description reaffirms that config is fetched 'by ID' but does not explain the 'version' parameter beyond its default and example in the schema. With half the parameters lacking documented meaning, the description does not fully compensate.

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 'Get Widget Config' and 'Returns widget configuration by ID.' It identifies the tool as the public widget-embed config fetch, distinct from other chat-widget ops. The initial note about name collision is distracting but does not obscure the purpose.

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 states 'no security/auth requirement for it, unlike other chat-widget ops,' providing clear guidance on when to use this tool (public config without auth) versus siblings that require auth. This is strong, direct usage advice.

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