Get trigger

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 adds real value by disclosing the completeness of the returned object and the caching behavior of the Default Workspace lookup. It stops short of noting error modes or what happens if the trigger id does not exist.

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?

Three tight sentences: return payload first, then the two non-obvious identifier formats. Every clause carries information an agent could not infer from the schema, with zero 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the two hard-to-guess parameters are documented. The remaining gap is trigger_id semantics and failure behavior for a missing 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?

With 0% schema description coverage the description must carry the burden, and it does for two of three params: container accepts GTM-XXXXXXX, a linked G-/AW- destination id, or an API path accounts/<a>/containers/<c>, and workspace_id is numeric with a documented default. trigger_id receives no format or provenance guidance at all.

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?

Opens with a concrete statement of what is returned: a single full trigger object including all filter conditions and fingerprint, which implicitly contrasts with the sibling gtm_list_triggers. The verb 'get' comes only from the name/title, not the description, so it is clear but not maximally explicit.

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 versus gtm_list_triggers or gtm_get_version, and no preconditions such as required scopes. The only guidance is parameter-level ('Omit to use the Default Workspace'), which does not help tool selection.

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