Get live (published) version

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. The description adds the useful semantic that 'live' means what visitors actually receive, but says nothing about behavior for unpublished/empty containers, error cases, or rate limits.

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 tight sentences with zero filler, and the core definition of the resource is front-loaded ahead of the identifier-format detail. Nothing repeats the annotations or the title verbatim.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the container identifier formats are covered. The remaining gap is the undocumented optional 'include_entities' flag, which an agent cannot reason about from either the schema or the description.

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. It does well for 'container', spelling out the public-id forms (GTM-XXXXXXX, linked G-/AW- destination id) and the API path form, but 'include_entities' is left entirely unexplained in both schema and description.

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 specific resource and its scope: the version currently published, clarified as 'what visitors actually get'. The verb is elided in the description (supplied only by the title), and sibling tools like gtm_get_version and gtm_list_versions are never named, so the distinction is implied rather than stated.

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?

Phrasing like 'currently published' implicitly tells an agent to use this instead of fetching an arbitrary version, but no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative tool is named. The agent must infer the gtm_get_version vs gtm_get_live_version split on its own.

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