ghl_course_get_offer

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

Annotations already cover the read-only/idempotent profile, and the description adds genuinely new behavioral context: it requires a Sub-Account token with courses.readonly, must send the Version: v3 header, and returns 404 for default-offer rows whose source is not membership. That 404 caveat is a useful gotcha beyond the annotations.

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-loads the verb and keeps to a few lines, but the leading 'COURSES API — the {productId} path parameter' sentence is noise since no such parameter exists, and endpoint/source metadata is somewhat redundant with annotations.

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 read-only getter with fully documented params and coverage, the description gives enough: auth requirement, version header, and the notable 404 edge case. No output schema exists, so return-shape detail is not required.

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 is 3. The description clarifies that the id is a membership offer id, but it also references a {productId} path parameter absent from the schema, which adds confusion rather than meaning to the two real params.

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 membership offer by id', which clearly distinguishes it from the create/update/delete offer siblings. The opening line references a '{productId} path parameter' that does not exist in the schema, which slightly muddies an otherwise clear purpose.

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?

Implies usage (fetch a single offer by id) but never states when to prefer this over ghl_course_list_offers or how to discover a valid offerId. The only guidance is the prerequisite condition (Location token with courses.readonly) and the 404 rule, not a use-vs-alternative distinction.

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