ghl_course_list_completions

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds genuinely useful operational context: requires a Sub-Account (location) token with courses.readonly scope, must send Version: v3, and pagination only applies to the rollup mode. It stops short of describing the returned record shape, which matters given there is no output schema.

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 course/productId mapping and the two-mode behavior, which is the right priority. Some boilerplate (endpoint line, version header repeated twice, the awkward 'Pagination params: pageSize' phrasing that omits pageNumber) is redundant but not harmful.

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?

Auth token type, scope, version header, endpoint, mode selection and pagination are all covered for a 5-parameter read tool with no output schema. The remaining gap is the shape of the returned completion records, which an agent must discover from the response itself.

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 the two-mode semantics of contactId, pageSize/pageNumber being ignored when contactId is set, and locationId are already documented in the schema. The description reinforces that productId is the course id, but adds little beyond what the schema states, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 completions for a course product) and immediately clarifies the two operating modes: per-learner when contactId is supplied, creator rollup otherwise. An agent knows exactly what data this returns, and the `{productId}` path note ties it to the course (product) resource.

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?

Explicitly says when to pass contactId versus omit it, which is the main branching decision for this tool. It does not name sibling alternatives (e.g. ghl_course_list_category_progress or ghl_course_list_bulk_progress), so cross-tool routing is left to the agent, keeping it below a 5.

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