ghl_course_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the description's job is to add operational context — which it does: required Sub-Account location token, courses.readonly scope, mandatory Version: v3 header, and the shape of returned items. This is meaningfully more than the annotations convey.

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?

The core purpose is front-loaded, but the text is cluttered: the {productId} sentence is irrelevant to a list endpoint, and the auth requirement is stated twice ('Requires a Location token with courses.readonly' and 'OAuth scopes: courses.readonly'), plus a redundant 'Requires a Sub-Account (location) token.' 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?

With no output schema, the description covers the essentials an agent needs: endpoint, version header, auth/scope, pagination mechanism, and the fact that items are full course objects. Only minor gaps remain — nothing about total counts or empty-result behavior.

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 all four params are already documented, giving a baseline of 3. The description only reinforces that limit and cursor page through full result sets; it adds nothing about the `search` filter and instead references an inapplicable {productId} path parameter.

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 — 'List courses in the location' — and notes each item is the full course object with customizations. It does not differentiate from nearby siblings such as ghl_course_get (single course) or ghl_product_list, and the opening '{productId} path parameter' line describes a path param this tool doesn't have, which slightly muddies the stated 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?

Usage is implied by the resource scope and the auth prerequisite ('Requires a Location token with courses.readonly'), and pagination behavior is noted. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance or named alternative (e.g. use ghl_course_get for a single course, ghl_product_list for the product catalog), so the agent must infer routing.

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