List GTM containers

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds operationally important context beyond that: request counts per account, a 10-account cap, and the quota of 25 requests per 100 seconds.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted wording. It packs scope, fallback behavior, request cost, cap, and quota into a compact statement.

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 not be described. The description covers account_id behavior and quota well, but with 0% schema parameter coverage it leaves the name_contains filter undocumented, which is a notable completeness gap for a two-parameter listing 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 parameter meaning. It explains account_id omission semantics well, including the all-accounts fallback and cap, but it does not mention the name_contains parameter 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: listing GTM containers, with clear scope for one account versus all accounts. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like gtm_list_accounts or gtm_get_container, but the resource is unambiguous.

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?

It gives a useful conditional behavior when account_id is omitted and notes a quota cap, which implies usage context. However, it does not say when to choose this tool over alternatives such as gtm_find_container or gtm_get_container, nor does it explain when to use the name_contains filter.

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