Get tag

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the description's main value is in disclosing accepted container formats and the default-workspace lookup/caching behavior. It also describes the returned tag shape, though it does not mention error behavior if the tag is missing.

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 front-loaded with the returned data shape, then gives the container format and workspace default in compact sentences. Every sentence supplies useful calling information without repetition.

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-value documentation is not strictly required, but the description still adds useful return details. It covers the tricky container and workspace parameters and does not contradict annotations; the only notable omission is an explicit description of tag_id.

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 carries the burden of explaining parameters. It does well for container (public ID, linked destination ID, or API path) and workspace_id (numeric, omitted defaults to cached Default Workspace), but it never describes the required tag_id parameter.

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 states exactly what the tool returns: a full tag with flattened parameters, triggers, consent, notes, fingerprint, and referenced variables. This clearly distinguishes it from gtm_list_tags, which would list tags rather than retrieve one tag's full detail.

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?

The word 'Full tag' implies this is the detailed single-tag retrieval tool, but the description does not explicitly say when to use it instead of gtm_list_tags or gtm_get_version. Usage guidance for container and workspace is present, but sibling routing is left implicit.

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