ghl_countdown_get_timer

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, so safety is covered; the description adds genuinely new operational context: a Sub-Account (location) token is required, the exact OAuth scope countdown-timer/timer.readonly, and that timers are scoped to the token's location. It stops short of describing the response payload, but the auth/prerequisite disclosure is the valuable part.

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 with the correct operation, but it is padded by a duplicated title-plus-restatement ("Get Countdown Timer / Get a countdown timer by ID") and by internal source metadata ("source: v3/countdown-timer-v3.json") that adds nothing for an agent.

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 single-resource getter with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description supplies everything needed to invoke it: endpoint, version header, token type, and required scope. Only the returned timer shape is unspecified, which is acceptable given the schema carries the inputs.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both timerId and contactId are already documented in the schema, including contactId's personalisation purpose. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameters, which is the baseline case.

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 and resource ("Get a countdown timer by ID") and names the exact endpoint, so it is unambiguously distinct from the sibling countdown tools (list_timers, create_timer, update_timer, delete_timer). An agent can select it without opening the 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?

"by ID" implies the lookup case, and the note that timers belong to the access token's location scopes the search space. However, it never says how to obtain a timerId (e.g., call ghl_countdown_list_timers first) or when to prefer this over the list tool, so usage is only implied.

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