GTM tag

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes beyond them by disclosing the returned contents and, critically, the fingerprint dependency on gtm_plan_tag_upsert, which is behavioral context the annotations cannot express.

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?

A single sentence, front-loaded with the resource and scope before the downstream dependency. It is efficient with no filler, though the parenthetical field list and wrapped line slightly impede scannability.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so by naming the fields returned. The read-only annotations cover safety, and the upsert linkage covers intent; only edge cases (tag not found, error behavior) are unaddressed, which is minor here.

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 100%, so tag_id, client_id, and workspace_id are already documented in the schema (including the multi-client requirement and the Default Workspace caveat). The description adds no parameter-level meaning, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 (get) and resource (one tag of a workspace), then enumerates the returned surface (type, parameters, triggers, paused, fingerprint). An agent can distinguish it from gtm_get_trigger and gtm_get_variable purely from the text, since the resource noun is explicit and the sibling names share the same suffix pattern.

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 description implicitly routes the agent: this is the read step whose fingerprint is required by gtm_plan_tag_upsert to perform an update, so it signals when to call it in the workflow. It does not, however, state when not to use it or mention alternative reads such as gtm_versions or gtm_workspace_status.

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