ghl_location_get_recurring_task_by_id

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds the endpoint version and source details but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like response format or side effects. Given annotation coverage, a 3 is appropriate.

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, consisting of a single line with the endpoint. It is front-loaded and easy to read. However, the inclusion of version and source info is somewhat extraneous for most agents, preventing a perfect 5.

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 simple get-by-ID tool, the description is minimally adequate. However, it does not specify what the tool returns (e.g., task details, fields). With no output schema, this leaves some ambiguity. The annotations help but completeness is lacking.

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 already present for both parameters ('Recurring Task Id' and 'Location Id'). The description does not add any new semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 applies.

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's purpose: getting a recurring task by ID. It provides the endpoint URL, which reinforces the action. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like create, delete, or update recurring tasks, which would elevate it to a 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when to use it, when not to, or suggest any alternative tools. The endpoint info is technical but not helpful for usage decisions.

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