ghl_object_get_schema_by_key

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds meaningful context: the returned data includes all fields and properties, supported objects, the endpoint URL, version header, source file, and OAuth scopes. No contradictions with annotations. Some details like error handling are omitted.

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 includes useful information but is somewhat verbose, with URL, endpoint, version, source, and OAuth scopes. This content could be moved to metadata or annotations. The first sentence is clear but the long paragraph could be more 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?

No output schema exists, so the description's statement that it returns 'the schema of the custom object, including all its fields and properties' provides sufficient completeness. It also lists supported object types. Lacks error handling or performance notes, but overall adequate for a read-only, idempotent schema retrieval.

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%, and the schema descriptions already document each parameter. The description mentions 'key or ID' but the input schema only has a 'key' parameter, causing slight confusion. It does not add significant meaning beyond the schema. 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 'Get Object Schema by key / id' and elaborates that it retrieves the schema of a custom object including all fields and properties. It specifies supported objects (contact, opportunity, business, custom objects) and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like ghl_object_get_record_by_id which operate on records rather than schema.

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 indicates this tool is for schema retrieval, not record manipulation. It lists supported object types and provides a documentation link. While it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives, the context of sibling tools (mostly unrelated) makes the tool's role clear. A more explicit when-to-use/not-use statement would improve clarity.

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