Find container by GTM-/G-/AW- id or name

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the description doesn't need to restate safety, and instead adds genuinely new behavioral context: request-cost expectations ('1–2 requests' vs '1 request per account'). That cost asymmetry is exactly the kind of detail annotations can't express. It doesn't say what happens if both params are supplied or how results are ordered/truncated.

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?

Two compact clauses, front-loaded with the primary resolution path and the request-cost hint, with the alternative mode stated second. No filler.

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?

With an output schema present and annotations covering the safety profile, the remaining burden is mode selection and input semantics, both addressed. Minor gaps: behavior when both parameters are provided, and whether the multi-account name search is expensive enough to warrant caution.

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 carry the parameter burden — and it largely does: public_id is explained with accepted formats and provenance ('from the website's source'), and name_contains is explained as a name search spanning all accounts. It never states whether the two params are mutually exclusive or how matching works (case/substring).

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 uses a specific verb ('Resolve') plus concrete outputs (account, container id, default workspace) and names the exact id formats accepted (GTM-XXXXXXX, G-/AW-). It also distinguishes the second mode (name search across accounts) from the id-resolution mode, which separates it from siblings like gtm_get_container that presumably take an internal id. It stops short of explicitly naming the sibling it replaces.

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 clearly indicates when to use each of the two modes: public_id when you got a GTM-/G-/AW- id from the site source, name_contains when you only know a name. No explicit when-not or named alternates (e.g. gtm_list_containers for browsing) are given, so it is a solid 4 rather than a 5.

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