ghl_location_get_all_or_email_sms_templates

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the endpoint, OAuth scopes, and pagination behavior (skip/limit), providing some context beyond annotations. No contradictions are present.

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 very concise: three sentences that front-load purpose, then provide endpoint, scopes, and pagination. Every sentence contributes meaningful technical detail with no redundancy.

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 tool lacks an output schema, so the description should explain what is returned. It does not mention the structure of the response, nor does it clarify that the required parameters (originId, locationId) are necessary. The safety hints from annotations are present but insufficient for complete usage.

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 33% description coverage (only originId and locationId). The description explains only the pagination parameters (skip, limit), leaving 'type' and 'deleted' undocumented. This fails to add meaning for the majority of parameters.

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 states 'GET all or email/sms templates' and provides the endpoint, making it clear that the tool retrieves templates for a location. However, the phrase 'all or email/sms' is slightly ambiguous given the schema includes 'whatsapp' as a type, and it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like the deletion tool.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., for filtering vs. retrieving all templates). The description only mentions technical details like OAuth scopes and pagination, but does not explain use cases or exclusions.

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