ghl_location_get_permissions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and destructiveHint, but the description adds valuable context: the requirement for an agency-level token and a security caveat (scope name mismatch). This exceeds the baseline provided by annotations, though rate limits or response behavior are not mentioned.

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 verbose and includes extraneous technical details (endpoint, version header, source file) that do not aid an AI agent in selecting or invoking the tool. The core message (agency token requirement and get permissions) could be conveyed in two sentences.

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 lack of an output schema, the description should explain what the return value contains (e.g., a list of permissions). It does not, leaving the agent without guidance on expected results. The authentication requirement is well-covered, but the response structure is missing.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal additional meaning beyond the schema's 'Location Id' description, only restating that it's a location/sub-account. No format or retrieval guidance is provided.

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 it retrieves permissions for a sub-account/location. The phrase 'Get Sub-Account (Formerly Location) permissions' clarifies the resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like ghl_location_update_permissions, relying on the name for distinction.

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 prominently notes that an agency-level token is required, which is a critical usage constraint. However, it offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as ghl_location_update_permissions, nor does it explain what permissions are being retrieved or how they are structured.

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