gtm_get_version

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It accurately conveys a read/retrieval operation, but does not disclose response shape, error behavior, or whether the returned version includes all configuration details. This is adequate for a simple GET-style tool, though not rich.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant restatement of parameter names. Every word contributes meaning.

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 single-resource GET with three fully documented required parameters and no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It could mention return value shape or contrast with gtm_get_live_version, but these are minor gaps given the tool's low complexity.

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 the parameters are already self-documenting as GTM Account ID, Container ID, and Container Version ID. The description adds no additional parameter context, which matches the baseline for full schema coverage.

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 states a clear verb ('Gets'), a specific resource ('a specific container version'), and the domain ('from GTM'). The word 'specific' distinguishes it from sibling tools like gtm_list_versions and gtm_get_live_version without needing to open the schema.

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 context is implied but not explicit: 'specific' suggests the caller already has a containerVersionId, and sibling names suggest alternatives for listing versions or fetching the live version. However, the description does not state when to prefer this tool over those alternatives.

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