ghl_invoice_schedule_get

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds endpoint details and OAuth scopes, which are useful context. However, it does not disclose behavior like error responses or what happens if the schedule doesn't exist. Given the annotation coverage, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 relatively concise at four lines. However, the first line 'Get an schedule' is redundant given the title. The rest provides useful endpoint and scope information. It could be slightly more concise by removing the first line, but overall it is well-structured and front-loaded.

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 operation with three well-documented parameters, no output schema, and strong annotations, the description provides essential context: the endpoint and OAuth scopes. It does not explain return values or error cases, but these are not always required. The tool is adequately described given its simplicity.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions and examples for all three parameters (scheduleId, altId, altType). The description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema; it only repeats the endpoint. Baseline 3 is correct since the schema already documents the parameters well.

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 an schedule' and 'API to get an schedule by schedule id', using a specific verb ('get') and resource ('schedule'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that perform other operations like activate, cancel, create, delete, list, update, etc.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only describes what it does. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing a scheduleId from a list call) or when not to use it. The differentiation from siblings is implied by the verb 'get' but not articulated.

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