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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered elsewhere. The description adds the qualifier 'draft' workspaces, which is real behavioral context about scope, but says nothing about pagination, ordering, or what happens if the container has no workspaces.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler. The trailing 'Tools revision: d80f65c0.' is boilerplate that adds nothing for an agent and could be dropped, but it is minor.

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?

A simple single-parameter list tool with rich annotations and an output schema, so the description does not need to explain return values. The path-format hint plus the 'draft' qualifier cover the essentials; only pagination/empty-result behavior is unaddressed.

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 single 'container' parameter would otherwise be opaque; the description compensates by giving the expected path shape 'accounts/<a>/containers/<c>'. It still doesn't state whether that is the numeric container ID or the full resource path, leaving some ambiguity.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('list the draft workspaces') and scopes it to a container, which cleanly separates it from gtm_list_containers, gtm_list_tags, and the other GTM list tools. It stops short of naming an alternative, but the resource is unambiguous.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer it needs a container path and that this is a read-only enumeration step in a GTM workflow. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no pointer to sibling tools for related lookups.

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