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

Beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations, it discloses real behavioral limits: only the first page is returned, no sorting is guaranteed, and results are capped by limit. It does not say what happens with a larger result set or how the container is resolved, but the key caveats an agent needs are present.

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?

Three short clauses, each carrying distinct information (ordering, limit/first-page caveat, alternative tool) plus a parameter note. The awkward line break and noun-phrase opening cost a little readability but nothing is wasted.

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 need not be explained, and the annotations cover the safety profile. The remaining gap is that the tool takes no container/account parameter and the description never explains how the target container is determined, which an agent may need to know before calling.

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%, so the description must carry the load and it mostly does: limit is explained as the maximum number of entries and workspace as the customer workspace slug that is optional when only one workspace exists. No format examples or bounds are given, but both parameters gain meaning beyond the bare 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 description states the resource (Versions-Header des Containers) and the ordering semantics (API-Reihenfolge), and explicitly points to gtm_container_info for the live version, which separates it from gtm_get_version. The verb is only implicit in the noun phrase, so it is clear but not maximally sharp.

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?

It names a concrete alternative and the condition that selects it: use gtm_container_info (live_version_id) when you need the current live version. It does not spell out when to prefer gtm_get_version or gtm_list_workspaces, so coverage of alternatives is partial rather than exhaustive.

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