ghl_custom_field_get_by_object_key

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, indicating safe read behavior. The description adds important contextual details: the limited support scope and required OAuth scopes (locations/customFields.readonly), which are not in 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?

The description contains redundant text (title repeated), HTML markup (div, p tags), and includes endpoint details and OAuth scopes that could be trimmed or better organized. It is somewhat verbose and not optimally concise.

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 operation with rich annotations, the description covers the essential scope limitation but omits any indication of the response structure or data format. While not critical due to the tool's simplicity, return value details would improve completeness.

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?

The description does not add any parameter-level details beyond the input schema. The objectKey parameter's prefix requirement is already in the schema description, and locationId is completely undocumented in both schema and description. With 50% schema coverage, the description fails to compensate for the missing parameter documentation.

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?

The description clearly states 'Get Custom Fields By Object Key' and specifies that it only supports Custom Objects and Company (Business). This correctly identifies the tool's purpose and distinguishes it from related tools like ghl_custom_field_get_by_id.

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?

The description explicitly states the supported object types (Custom Objects and Company) via the info box, which guides when to use this tool. However, it does not mention alternatives or explicitly exclude unsupported objects beyond 'supported today', which would make it clearer.

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