Tag Manager inventory

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), so the description's job is to add context — and it does: it discloses that only the default workspace is covered, that the live published version id is included, and that built-in trigger ids are humanized. It does not disclose result size or pagination behavior, which keeps this below a 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?

Front-loaded with the returned contents, then qualifications, then the use case — a sensible ordering. Dense but every clause carries information; only the trailing 'Useful to spot...' sentence is mildly promotional rather than factual.

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 must describe the return payload, and it does enumerate the fields returned (tags with type/paused/firing triggers/parameters, triggers, variables, live version id) along with the container/workspace scope. It omits how the single client_id parameter affects behaviour and any size/rate caveats, so it is good but not fully complete.

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% and there is a single optional client_id fully documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description never references client selection at all, adding no meaning beyond the schema's 'Client id from clients_list' explanation.

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 the resource and its scope precisely: tags (with type, paused, firing triggers, parameters), triggers, variables of the default workspace, plus the live version id. It is implicitly distinguished from the single-entity getters (gtm_get_tag, gtm_get_trigger, gtm_get_variable) by being a whole-container inventory, but no sibling is named and there is no explicit verb.

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 final clause ('Useful to spot a tag configured twice') gives one concrete use case, which is better than nothing, but there is no statement of when to prefer this over gtm_get_tag/gtm_get_trigger/gtm_get_variable for a single entity, nor any prerequisite or exclusion.

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