ghl_course_get_lesson

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: the exact auth/scope requirement, the underlying endpoint and API version header, and that the full lesson object is returned.

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?

Core intent is front-loaded in the first line and the scoping clarification follows immediately. The endpoint/source line is metadata that could be trimmed, but it is compact and does not obscure the primary purpose.

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 three-required-param read tool with no output schema, the description covers what is needed to invoke it correctly: auth scope, token type, path parameter identity, and a note that the full lesson object is returned. Return-value detail is the only thin area, and that is acceptable without an output schema.

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 all three parameters are already documented, establishing a baseline of 3. The description adds one genuinely useful clarification (productId = course/product id), but says nothing about lessonId or how locationId interacts with the token, so it does not meaningfully exceed the baseline.

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 lesson by id'), amplified by the clarifying note that productId is the course (product) id, which removes the store-product ambiguity. It does not explicitly name siblings like ghl_course_list_lessons or ghl_course_get, so differentiation is by implication only.

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?

Provides useful prerequisite context — requires a Sub-Account (location) token and the courses.readonly scope — but never states when to pick this over ghl_course_list_lessons versus ghl_course_get. Usage is inferred from the 'by id' phrasing rather than explicitly routed.

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