ghl_user_get_by_location

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. Description adds deprecation status and OAuth scopes, but does not expand on behavioral traits like rate limits or side effects.

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 repetitive with multiple deprecation warnings ('DEPRECATED per spec', 'DEPRECATED per official docs', 'Deprecated.') and includes extraneous details like endpoint, version header, and source. It could be reduced to a single sentence.

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 deprecated tool, it sufficiently explains what to use instead and basic parameters. However, it lacks output schema details and does not handle the sole parameter thoroughly.

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 0%, and the description only mentions locationId without explaining its semantics (e.g., format, source). It also references other parameters for the replacement endpoint, which is unnecessary for this tool.

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The description states the tool is deprecated and superseded by another endpoint, but still clearly indicates its purpose: 'Get User by Location.' It distinguishes from siblings by pointing to the replacement. However, the deprecation message is verbose and slightly cluttered.

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?

Explicitly advises against using this tool: 'Deprecated. Use GET /users/search instead.' Also mentions parameters for the replacement, providing clear alternative guidance.

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