ghl_oauth_get_access_token

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

Beyond annotations, the description discloses that the operation has no security scheme (credentials in body), defaults to form-encoded body but accepts JSON, and references the spec. No contradictions 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 relatively concise with key information front-loaded, though some redundancy exists (e.g., 'Get Access Token' appears in title and description). Overall, it is well-structured.

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?

The description covers purpose, grant types, content type, and security, but lacks details about the expected response format and error scenarios. Given the absence of an output schema, more detail on the response would improve completeness.

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?

The schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all parameters. The description adds value by explaining the content type handling and that client credentials go in the body, which is not obvious from the schema alone.

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 performs OAuth2 token exchange for authorization_code and refresh_token grants to obtain access tokens for accessing CRM resources. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by specifying the grant types and content type handling.

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 explains when to use the tool ('to access CRM resources') and provides some context on content type defaults, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare with sibling OAuth tools like ghl_oauth_get_location_access_token.

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