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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context: version_id must be purely numeric or the API returns an invalid_id error, and workspace is optional when only one workspace exists. It does not discuss response size, pagination, or authentication requirements.

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 three short, front-loaded sentences with no filler. The purpose is stated first, followed by parameter constraints, which is an efficient structure.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values do not need explanation. The description covers the resource, the scope of returned data, and both parameters. It could be slightly more complete by naming when this tool is preferred over sibling retrieval tools, but it is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden and largely succeeds. It explains that version_id must be purely numeric and that workspace is a customer workspace slug, optional when there is only one workspace. It does not explain how to discover workspace slugs, but it gives meaningful semantics for both parameters.

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 that the tool retrieves details of a version, including all tags, triggers, and variables. This is a specific resource and scope, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like gtm_list_versions or gtm_get_tag.

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 implies usage by saying it returns version details and by explaining that workspace is optional when there is only one workspace. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus gtm_list_versions or other GTM retrieval tools.

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