ghl_store_get_shipping_carrier

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context — the v3 version header, endpoint path, and the requirement for a Sub-Account (location) token — but the 'paginated list' phrasing mischaracterizes the behavior and could lead an agent to expect paging controls that don't exist in the schema.

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?

Four short lines, front-loaded with the operation and followed by endpoint, version, and auth. The 'source: v3/store-v3.json' provenance is filler, but the block is otherwise tight and scannable.

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 read-only getter with full annotations and no output schema, endpoint + auth context is mostly sufficient. However, nothing is said about the returned carrier shape or how it relates to the list sibling, and the inaccurate list framing leaves a real ambiguity unresolved.

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 67%: altId and shippingCarrierId have descriptions, altType is enum-only. The description adds nothing about how altId/altType scope the lookup beyond noting the location token requirement, so it neither compensates for the gap nor falls below the baseline for a moderately documented schema.

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 lead line restates the tool name and the next sentence describes the operation as the "List Shipping Carrier" API returning a 'paginated list', which conflicts with a get-by-ID fetch. The embedded endpoint 'GET /store/shipping-carrier/{shippingCarrierId}' does correct the record, so an attentive agent can infer a single-resource read, but the purpose statement itself sends mixed signals.

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 indication of when to use this versus the obvious sibling ghl_store_list_shipping_carriers, nor any prerequisite beyond the token note. The agent must infer that this is the single-item read and the list tool is the collection read.

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