ghl_oauth_exchange_location_token

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

Annotations are sparse (readOnlyHint=false, etc.). The description adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations: security requirement (Agency-Access-Only), encoding format (form-urlencoded), and that it is the 'standard way' to obtain a location token.

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 relatively concise and well-structured, starting with the critical requirement in bold. A few extraneous details (e.g., endpoint URL, OAuth scopes) could be trimmed, but overall efficient.

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 tool's moderate complexity and lack of output schema, the description provides sufficient context: security, encoding, endpoint. Missing return value details, but not critical for a token exchange 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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for companyId and locationId. The description redundantly mentions them as form fields but adds little new meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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: 'mint a location-scoped token from an agency token.' It uses specific verbs ('get', 'mint') and resources ('location access token'). Distinguishes from siblings by explicitly requiring an agency-level token.

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 specifies that the tool requires an agency-level token and that the body must be application/x-www-form-urlencoded. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or list alternatives, but provides critical usage context.

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