ghl_location_search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and nondestructive nature. The description adds pagination behavior (skip/limit) and OAuth scopes. However, it does not explain search semantics (exact vs. partial match) or result structure. 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?

The description is concise, containing endpoint, scopes, and pagination notes. The first line 'Search' is redundant but not harmful. All sentences are relevant, and the information is front-loaded.

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 no output schema, the description should explain return value structure or field details. It does not. The tool has 5 optional parameters, but the search behavior (e.g., how email filter works) is unclear. Completeness is lacking for a search tool.

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 description coverage is 80% (4 of 5 parameters have descriptions). The description mentions pagination params but does not add meaning beyond what the schema provides. The 'email' parameter lacks schema description and is not explained in the description either.

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 searches for sub-accounts (formerly locations) and provides the endpoint. The name 'ghl_location_search' combined with the description makes the purpose clear. However, it does not explicitly describe what is returned or contrast with sibling search tools.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., ghl_contact_search_advanced, ghl_location_get). No when-to-use or when-not-to-use information is provided.

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