ghl_marketplace_get_specific_charge

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly/idempotent/destructive=false), the description adds genuinely useful operational context: it requires a Sub-Account (location) token, only OAuth access tokens are accepted (Private Integration Tokens are rejected), and the required scope is charges.readonly. That is material auth context an agent cannot get from the 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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then endpoint, auth, and scope in compact lines. Every line carries operational value; minor redundancy between the endpoint path and schema is acceptable.

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 single-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description supplies the endpoint, token constraints, and OAuth scope – enough for correct invocation. It doesn't describe the returned charge shape, but no output schema exists and the annotations already flag it as a safe read.

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 single chargeId parameter is fully documented in the schema, so the description need only not contradict it – which it doesn't via the {chargeId} path. It adds no further meaning beyond the schema, so the 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 states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('specific wallet charge details'), which distinguishes a single-charge fetch from the list-oriented siblings like ghl_marketplace_get_charges. It doesn't explicitly name those siblings, but the verb+resource is clear enough for an agent to select correctly.

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 usage context is only implied by the word 'specific' – an agent must infer that this is for retrieving one charge by ID while ghl_marketplace_get_charges handles lists. No explicit when-to-use or exclusion guidance is provided.

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