Get GTM container

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description adds the useful detail of what fields come back, but says nothing about error behavior when an id is unknown or about permission/auth requirements.

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 dense sentences with no filler; the returned-field list is front-loaded and the identifier syntax follows. The telegraphic, fragmentary phrasing ('Container as public id...') costs a little readability but wastes no space.

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, the description need not explain return values, yet it usefully previews the fields, and it fully specifies the one required argument. What is missing is only the sibling-disambiguation context, which is a usage concern rather than a completeness gap for calling the 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the entire burden for the single required 'container' parameter, and it does: it gives both accepted forms (public id such as GTM-XXXXXXX or a linked G-/AW- destination id, and the API path accounts/<a>/containers/<c>). This is a meaningful addition over an undescribed string field, though it omits edge cases like case sensitivity or malformed-id handling.

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 the resource and enumerates the fields returned (name, public id, usage context, domains, linked tag ids), which clearly distinguishes it from mutation siblings. The verb is only implied by the noun phrase 'Container details' rather than an explicit 'retrieves', and nothing separates it from gtm_find_container or gtm_list_containers.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this single-container lookup versus gtm_find_container (search) or gtm_list_containers (enumerate), which is the most likely agent confusion given the sibling set. The only routing-like guidance is about identifier formats, which is parameter guidance rather than usage guidance.

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