ghl_course_get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds genuinely new context: the exact endpoint with version header, the required token type and OAuth scope, and that the response contains product columns plus nested customizations. It does not cover error cases or pagination, but neither applies to a single-resource GET.

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 purpose and path-parameter clarification, which is good, but the authentication requirement is restated three times — 'Requires a Location token with courses.readonly', 'Requires a Sub-Account (location) token', and 'OAuth scopes: courses.readonly'. Those repetitions do not earn their place and could be collapsed into one line.

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 two-parameter read-only fetcher with no output schema, the description supplies endpoint, auth requirements, scope, and a sketch of the return payload — enough for an agent to call it correctly and anticipate the response shape. Only the redundant auth text and the absence of error semantics keep it from a 5.

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%, so both parameters are already documented. The description still adds real meaning by resolving the ambiguous schema label 'Product id' into 'the course (product) id', which prevents an agent from passing an unrelated product id. It adds little for locationId beyond what the schema states.

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 course by id' — and immediately clarifies that the productId path parameter is the course (product) id, which disambiguates from the many product/course siblings. An agent can distinguish it from ghl_course_list (which returns multiple courses) 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?

Gives the conditions for use: requires a Location (sub-account) token with the courses.readonly OAuth scope. The single-item 'by id' framing implies the alternative is the list tool, but no sibling is named and no exclusion ('use X instead when...') is stated, so it stops short of a 5.

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