Get container version

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful return-shape context (counts, tags-by-type, compact lists), but says nothing about permissions, error behavior for a bad container/version id, or the size/truncation characteristics of the compact lists.

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 return contents come first and the parameter formats second, so the most important information is front-loaded. The telegraphic style is efficient, though slightly clipped enough to read as notes rather than prose.

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 needn't be described, and the container format guidance is complete. What's missing for an agent to call this confidently is where version_id comes from and how this differs from gtm_get_live_version — a real gap in a 32-tool family with three near-identical version tools.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the load and largely does: it spells out both container forms (GTM-XXXXXXX public id or accounts/<a>/containers/<c> API path) and defines exactly what include_entities=true changes. Only version_id is left entirely unexplained, keeping it short of a 5.

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 precisely what the tool returns: a single version with counts, tags-by-type, and optional compact entity lists. This distinguishes it from the listing siblings, though it never explicitly contrasts with gtm_list_versions or gtm_get_live_version, which is the closest ambiguity.

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 include_entities clause gives an implied usage rule (default is summaries; flip it for full entity lists), but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no note that version_id comes from gtm_list_versions, and no pointer to gtm_get_live_version as the alternative for the current live state.

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