Raw GET (escape hatch)

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, so the description adds meaningful context with the 50 KB truncation limit. It does not cover error behavior or rate limits, but the truncation disclosure is a concrete behavioral trait beyond annotations.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the core verb and scope. The example and truncation warning are useful and not padded.

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?

Given rich annotations and an output schema, the description covers the main invocation shape, path syntax, and output limit. The remaining gap is the optional params parameter, which is neither described in the schema nor the description.

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 explain the required path format with a concrete example, but it says nothing about the optional params object, leaving one of two parameters 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 and resource: GET any Tag Manager v2 resource path. The escape-hatch framing and path example clearly distinguish it from the many dedicated list/get/create sibling tools.

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?

Explicitly says to use it for things no dedicated tool covers, which gives a clear when-to-use condition. It does not name specific sibling alternatives, but the category-level exclusion is clear.

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