ghl_course_get_lesson_assignment

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the description's added value is the auth and versioning requirements (location token, courses.readonly scope, Version v3 header) which are real operational constraints not in the structured fields. It does not describe the response payload, but that is the only notable gap.

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 the key parameter clarification, with endpoint and auth details following. Slight redundancy in repeating the courses.readonly scope twice and stating the location token requirement in two phrasings.

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 3-parameter read tool with no output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies purpose, auth requirements, and path semantics. Only the shape of the returned assignment is undocumented, which is a minor gap.

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 baseline is 3; the description goes beyond by explaining that productId is the course (product) id and placing lessonId/productId in the endpoint path, resolving genuine ambiguity in how a 'Product id' maps to a course.

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 the assignment for a lesson') and disambiguates the ambiguous productId path parameter as the course id. It does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools like create/update/delete_lesson_assignment, but the verb makes the read-only intent 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?

Provides prerequisites (location/sub-account token, courses.readonly scope, Version: v3 header) which help an agent decide if it can call it at all, but gives no explicit when-to-use-vs-alternatives guidance or exclusions.

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