ghl_social_get_google_locations

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description is not required to repeat that. However, it adds the endpoint and version header, which provides technical context but does not disclose return format, pagination, or error behavior. With annotations covering safety, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 very short, consisting of two sentences. It states the purpose and includes the endpoint. No unnecessary information is present, though the endpoint detail could be considered technical noise for an AI agent. However, it is concise and front-loaded with the main action.

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 simple GET operation with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It identifies the resource and endpoint but does not explain what the response contains (e.g., list of location details). Given the simplicity and annotation coverage, a score of 3 is reasonable.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters (accountId and locationId). The description does not add any additional meaning or constraints beyond what the schema provides. Therefore, the description meets the baseline but does not enhance parameter understanding.

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 google business locations', indicating a read operation for Google business locations. The tool name includes 'get' which aligns with the action. Among siblings, there is a 'set' counterpart (ghl_social_set_google_locations), so it distinguishes by operation type. The endpoint URL adds specificity to the resource.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like ghl_social_set_google_locations. It does not mention scenarios such as retrieving existing locations before updating, or that this is a read-only operation. The annotations indicate readOnlyHint but the description itself lacks usage context.

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