ghl_social_get_watermark

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description adds what annotations cannot: the sub-account (location) token requirement and the exact OAuth scope socialplanner/watermarks.readonly. The only gap is that it doesn't say what happens on an unknown templateId (error vs. empty response).

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?

Front-loaded with the verb and resource, then the returned-field inventory, then operational notes. The endpoint/version/source line and the near-duplicate restatement of the title are mild padding but not enough to hurt readability.

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?

There is no output schema, so listing the concrete fields returned is genuinely useful compensation. Combined with auth token and scope requirements, an agent has nearly everything needed; only error behavior and any pagination/lookup caveats are missing.

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 both templateId and locationId are already documented. The description adds only marginal value, implicitly clarifying that locationId is a sub-account/location and that templateId is a watermark template ID, plus the accountIds cross-reference that isn't a parameter at all. 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?

States a specific verb+resource+scope: retrieve full details of a single watermark template by ID. It then enumerates the fields returned (image URL, position, scale, opacity, padding, name, accountIds), which distinguishes it clearly from siblings like ghl_social_get_all_watermarks and ghl_social_add_watermark_on_image.

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?

Gives usable context for how to obtain the required identifiers (pointing to the Get Accounts endpoint for accountIds) and confirms this is the single-template-by-ID lookup. It does not explicitly say when to prefer this over ghl_social_get_all_watermarks, but the 'by ID' phrasing makes the selection condition fairly obvious.

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