ghl_conversation_ai_get_agent_working_hours

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value with the OAuth scope required (conversation-ai.readonly) and the concrete field set returned, which annotations do not convey.

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?

Front-loaded purpose sentence, then compact endpoint/version/scope metadata. Minor redundancy in restating the title as the opening line, but no padding or noise.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields, which is the key missing piece. With annotations covering safety and the schema covering the sole parameter, an agent has what it needs to call it correctly; only error/not-found behavior is unaddressed.

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% and the single agentId parameter is documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds nothing about agentId semantics (format, where to source it) beyond what the schema already says.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Retrieves the working-hours configuration for an AI agent') and enumerates the returned content (weekly schedule, channels, timezone mode, off-hours auto-reply and follow-up settings). This lets an agent distinguish it from the create/update/delete working-hours siblings without opening a schema.

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 read-only 'get' framing implies when it applies, but the description never states when to use this versus the sibling tools (ghl_conversation_ai_update_agent_working_hours, create, delete) or any preconditions. Usage is inferable from the name only.

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