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

The annotations already declare this as a safe, idempotent read operation, so the description does not need to explain safety. It adds the account path context, but says nothing about pagination, result limits, or other behavior beyond the structured annotations.

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 core information is front-loaded in one short sentence with no wasted wording. The trailing tools revision line is operational noise that does not help an agent select or invoke the tool.

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?

This is a simple one-parameter read tool with rich annotations and an output schema, so the description need not explain return values. It gives enough context to identify the resource and account scope, though it could add slightly more parameter precision.

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 must clarify the single required parameter. It does so partially by indicating the account is in accounts/<id> form, but it does not clarify whether the parameter expects a numeric ID, full resource path, or both.

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 a specific verb and resource: list containers under a GTM account. It also gives the account path shape, which makes the scope clearer than the bare tool name. It does not explicitly name sibling list tools or explain why to choose this one over them.

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 containers are listed under a GTM account, but it does not state when to use this versus gtm_list_accounts or other GTM list tools. No prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative guidance are provided.

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