ghl_object_get_record_by_id

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotence, non-destructive. Description only adds endpoint URL and version, no further behavioral context (e.g., auth, rate limits, data returned). Minimal value beyond 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?

Short, front-loaded with title and purpose. Endpoint info is useful but could be trimmed. Efficient for a simple tool.

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?

Minimal but sufficient for a straightforward read operation. Lacks output description (no output schema) and error scenarios. Could mention it returns the full record object. Adequate with annotations.

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%, so baseline is 3. Description does not add meaning beyond schema; it repeats endpoint structure but no additional semantics. No contradiction but no added value.

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?

Clearly states 'get' verb and 'record by Id' resource. Mentions both standard and custom objects. Distinguishes from create/delete/update siblings. However, could differentiate from other get tools (e.g., schema, association) more explicitly.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., search_records, get_schema). Missing when-not-to-use or context for selection among many sibling tools.

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