gtm_get_tag

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It clearly conveys a read-only retrieval operation ('Gets') but adds no context about return format, error behavior, or authentication requirements. There is no contradiction with annotations because none exist.

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?

One short sentence with no filler; the verb and object are front-loaded, and every word earns its place. It is efficiently structured for quick agent parsing.

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?

For a simple getter with all required parameters documented, the description is adequate, but it does not describe the return payload or error conditions, and there is no output schema to fill that gap. It is minimally complete rather than fully specified.

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 coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents all four required IDs and their purpose. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Gets') and resource ('specific tag configuration'), clearly identifying the operation as retrieval of a single GTM tag by ID. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like gtm_list_tags, gtm_get_trigger, and gtm_get_variable because it names tag configuration as the target.

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 wording implies this tool is for retrieving a single existing tag configuration once the IDs are known, but it provides no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or comparison with alternatives such as gtm_list_tags. Usage is left to inference.

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