List container versions

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: results are newest-first, each entry carries entity counts, and the response delivers the latest version id. It does not mention pagination behavior for limit/offset, keeping it below 5.

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 that are front-loaded with the return contents and ordering, followed by the input format detail. There is no filler, though the telegraphic style borders on cryptic.

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 explained, and annotations cover safety. However, with 0% schema description coverage, the description leaves three of four parameters unexplained and provides no guidance on which sibling to use for fetching or publishing a single version.

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 compensate. It does a good job with the required `container` parameter, explaining the accepted public-id (GTM-XXXXXXX, linked G-/AW-) and API-path forms, but leaves `limit`, `offset`, and `include_deleted` completely undocumented.

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 a specific verb+resource (list container versions) and even specifies the payload shape (id, name, entity counts, latest version id) and ordering. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like gtm_get_version or gtm_get_live_version, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Usage is implied: you call this to enumerate a container's version history. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer gtm_get_version, gtm_get_live_version, or gtm_publish_version instead, and no preconditions are given.

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