get_gtm_tag

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

Annotations already note readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds significant behavioral detail: 'Includes every parameter, firing/blocking triggers (with their filter conditions resolved to text), priority, pause status, sampling, and monitoring metadata.' This goes well beyond the annotations and accurately describes the output scope.

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 concise: two sentences. The first sentence captures the core purpose, and the second lists key output components and a use case. Every word adds value, with no repetition or fluff. It is well-structured and front-loaded.

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?

The tool has a low schema coverage (0%) but an existing output schema (implied). The description explains the tool's purpose and output contents comprehensively for a read-only operation. However, it does not cover the optional parameters or their context, leaving a small gap in completeness.

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?

The input schema has three parameters (tag_id required, optional gtm_account_id and gtm_container_id) but zero schema description coverage. The description does not explain what these parameters represent or how to use them. It only mentions the tool's overall purpose, adding no semantic value to the parameters.

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 clearly states 'Get the full RAW configuration for a single GTM tag,' specifying the verb (get), resource (full RAW configuration), and target (single GTM tag). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_gtm_tags (listing tags) and get_gtm_trigger (for triggers) by emphasizing 'full RAW configuration' including triggers, priority, etc.

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 provides a specific use case: 'Use to inspect a tag flagged by audit_event_coverage.' It implies deep inspection, though it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like list_gtm_tags for a summary. The guidance is clear but lacks exclusion criteria.

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