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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description repeats 'Read-only' but adds no new behavioral traits such as auth requirements, rate limits, or side effects. It does not contradict the 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 description is a single long sentence but is front-loaded with the primary purpose and then enumerates contents in a structured, scannable way. It is dense but efficient; a bulleted list would improve readability slightly.

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?

Since there is no output schema, the description compensates by listing all major data sections that will be returned: goal, voice, cap, working hours, ICP, sourcing lanes, autonomy ladder, LinkedIn, and usage. It omits error/not-found behavior, but that is a minor gap for a simple read-only inspection tool.

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?

The schema only says playId is 'The play to inspect.' The description adds that playId should come from gtm_list_plays and clarifies what a play encompasses, helping the agent source a valid identifier and understand the object being referenced.

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 immediately establishes 'ONE play in full' and enumerates the exact content areas, making it unambiguous that this is a detailed single-play inspection tool. It clearly differentiates from siblings like gtm_list_plays (listing) and gtm_show_sources (sourcing only) by scope and depth.

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 explicitly instructs to 'Pass a playId from gtm_list_plays', giving a concrete workflow and prerequisite. It also states the intended use case ('judge it or copy it into a better one'), but it does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools for stats or sources, so it lacks exclusionary guidance.

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