gtm_get_trigger

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description adds only the workspace-scoping context, which the schema already explains ('Omit only for reads to use Default Workspace'); it says nothing extra about error behavior or what is returned.

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 eleven-word sentence with zero padding and the resource front-loaded. It is appropriately sized, though borderline under-specified rather than maximally informative.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the annotations cover the safety profile. What is missing is usage context and any differentiation from the dozen sibling get/create/list tools, leaving the definition merely adequate for a single-resource read.

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 75% (account, container, workspace documented; triggerId bare), and the description's 'by ID' implicitly maps to triggerId, adding a small amount of meaning. With high-but-not-complete coverage the schema carries most of the load, so baseline 3 fits.

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 one trigger') plus a scope qualifier ('by ID from a workspace'), which clearly separates it from the sibling gtm_list_triggers. It does not explicitly name siblings or contrast with gtm_get_tag/gtm_get_variable, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

No indication of when to use this versus gtm_list_triggers or the other get_* tools, and no prerequisites (e.g. that the trigger must already exist, or how to obtain a triggerId). The only implied guidance is 'by ID', which is naming, not usage.

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