ghl_invoice_get_settings

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

Annotations already mark it as readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds specific endpoint (GET /invoices/settings) and OAuth scopes, providing helpful context beyond what annotations offer. No contradiction.

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 is brief, using four lines to convey purpose, endpoint, version, and auth scopes. Every sentence is pertinent; no unnecessary words.

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?

The description lacks information about the return value (no output schema). Given the tool is read-only and returns settings, mentioning what settings are returned (e.g., payment methods, late fees) would improve completeness. However, it is clear enough for an API-savvy agent.

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 50% (altId has a description, altType only has an enum). The description says 'for the given location' but does not clarify the difference between altId and altType or their formats. The description adds no value beyond the schema.

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 the tool retrieves invoice settings for a given location. The title 'Get Invoice Settings' and the first line reinforce this. It is distinct from sibling invoice tools (e.g., ghl_invoice_get for individual invoices) by specifying 'settings'.

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 provides OAuth scopes (invoices.readonly) implying read usage, but no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or preconditions.

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