ghl_location_get

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

The description adds context beyond annotations: it specifies the HTTP method (GET), the endpoint path, version header, and required OAuth scopes (locations.readonly). This clarifies the read-only nature and authorization needs. No contradictions with 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 is efficient with three lines: purpose, action, and technical details. The first line could be merged, but overall it is front-loaded and 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (single parameter, no output schema), the description provides adequate context including endpoint, version, and OAuth scopes. It lacks mention of response structure or error cases, but these are not critical for such a straightforward retrieval.

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 parameter 'locationId' described as 'Location Id'. The description reinforces that this is the sub-account ID, but adds no new semantic details. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 details of a sub-account by its ID, using 'Get' and specifying the resource and parameter. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like ghl_location_search and ghl_location_get_tags by focusing on a single location retrieval 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 implies the tool should be used when a specific location ID is known, but it does not explicitly guide when to prefer this over alternatives like ghl_location_search or ghl_location_get. No exclusions or usage context beyond the parameter.

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