ghl_kb_get_file_by_id

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description adds genuinely new operational context: the Sub-Account (location) token requirement, the knowledge-bases.readonly OAuth scope, and the concrete endpoint and API version. It stops short of describing error behavior (e.g. missing file id) or response shape details, so it lands just below the top.

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?

Labelled sections (WHEN TO USE, RETURNS, Endpoint) front-load the decision-relevant content. It loses a point for restating the title verbatim in the first line and for metadata boilerplate ('source: v3/knowledge-base-v3.json') that adds little for the calling agent.

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 one-parameter read with no output schema, the description covers purpose, alternatives, auth prerequisites, and a one-line return summary — enough to call it correctly. It could say a bit more about what 'uploaded file details' contains, but the operation is simple enough that this is a minor gap.

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% with a single required fileId documented as 'File ID to retrieve', so the schema carries the burden. The description only says 'for that file id' and adds no format, source, or lookup hints beyond the schema — baseline 3 is correct.

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 ('Retrieves one uploaded file by id for the authenticated location') and immediately distinguishes itself from the list and delete siblings. An agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.

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?

A dedicated WHEN TO USE block names both alternatives (getFilesByKnowledgeBasePublic to list, deleteFile to remove) and the condition that selects each. This is explicit routing guidance rather than implied usage.

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