ghl_location_get_custom_value

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, and idempotentHint, so the description carries minimal burden. It adds the endpoint version header but no additional behavioral traits (e.g., permissions, pagination, or response shape). No contradiction 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?

Extremely concise: one line for purpose and one for endpoint details. However, the endpoint version information could be considered noisy for an agent. Still, it is front-loaded and efficiently communicates the essential information.

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 simplicity of the operation (get a custom value by ID) and the presence of annotations indicating safety, the description is adequate but lacks mention of what the response contains or any error conditions. No output schema exists, so the description could provide more context.

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 descriptions for 'id' and 'locationId'. The tool description repeats the endpoint template but adds no semantic value beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

Description states verb 'Get' and resource 'Custom Value', clearly indicating a read operation. The tool name mirrors this, and siblings like 'ghl_location_create_custom_value' and 'ghl_location_delete_custom_value' provide contrast, making purpose unambiguous.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus similar tools like 'ghl_location_get_custom_values' (plural). The endpoint is provided but no context on prerequisites or typical use cases. It does not differentiate from siblings or indicate alternatives.

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