ghl_course_get_category

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description genuinely adds value beyond them: OAuth scope, token type, exact endpoint and version header, and confirmation that it returns the full category object.

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 and mostly purposeful, but the token requirement is stated twice ("Requires a Location token..." and "Requires a Sub-Account (location) token"), and the header/version/source metadata is somewhat verbose for a simple getter.

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 id-based getter with 100% schema coverage and full annotation coverage, the description provides auth requirements, endpoint, and return shape, so an agent has enough to invoke it. Minor gap: no note on error behavior when the category id is invalid.

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 baseline would be 3, but the description adds real meaning by clarifying that {productId} is the course (product) id, which resolves ambiguity the schema's "Product id" text leaves open.

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 ("Get a category by id"), which inherently distinguishes it from the sibling ghl_course_list_categories. However, it never names a sibling explicitly (list/create/update/delete category) to make routing unambiguous.

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?

It gives the prerequisites (Location/sub-account token, courses.readonly scope), so an agent knows what's needed to call it. But there is no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives guidance, e.g. no pointer to ghl_course_list_categories when only browsing rather than fetching one by id.

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