Tag Manager tag details

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, establishing the safety profile. The description adds context about the returned data (parameters, triggers, priority, etc.) without contradicting the read-only nature. No side effects are mentioned, but the tool is clearly a get operation.

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 two concise sentences, front-loading the primary purpose and then elaborating on the included details. No unnecessary words or redundant information, and it is well-structured with a clear flow from what it does to when to use it.

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?

Provides enough context to understand the tool's function and usage scenario, including the mention of audit_event_coverage. The return content is described sufficiently for an agent to know what to expect. However, parameter meanings are not covered, leaving a minor gap, but the existence of an output schema reduces the need for detailed return descriptions.

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 description does not explain the meaning or purpose of tag_id, gtm_account_id, or gtm_container_id. With zero schema descriptions for these parameters, the agent must infer that tag_id likely identifies the tag, but this is not explicit. This is a significant gap for correct invocation.

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?

Clearly states it retrieves the full RAW configuration for a single GTM tag, specifying both the resource and the scope. Differentiates from list_gtm_tags by focusing on a single tag's detailed configuration, and from get_gtm_trigger by covering the tag-level data including triggers.

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?

Provides a specific use case ('Use to inspect a tag flagged by audit_event_coverage'), giving practical guidance on when to apply the tool. Does not explicitly mention alternatives like list_gtm_tags for listing, but the purpose is clear enough that an agent can infer the appropriate context.

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