ghl_marketplace_get_specific_charge

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, indicating safe read-only behavior. The description adds no additional behavioral context beyond repeating the purpose. No mention of rate limits, caching, or other traits.

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 short and front-loaded with the core purpose. The additional technical details (endpoint, OAuth scopes) are brief and not excessive, though they may be considered non-essential. Overall, it is concise.

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 operation with one parameter and full schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks any mention of return format, relationship to other marketplace billing tools, or prerequisites. Could be more complete.

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 100%, and the parameter 'chargeId' is well-described in the schema as 'ID of the charge to retrieve'. The tool description does not add any extra meaning beyond the schema, thus baseline score of 3.

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: 'Get specific wallet charge details'. The verb 'Get' and resource 'specific wallet charge details' are precise. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'ghl_marketplace_get_charges' (lists multiple charges) and 'ghl_marketplace_charge' (likely creates a charge).

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 implies usage when you need details of a single charge, as opposed to listing charges. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'ghl_marketplace_get_charges'. No direct comparisons or exclusions are provided.

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