Tag Manager trigger details

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint true, so the description doesn't need to repeat that it's read-only. However, the description adds valuable content about what the response includes (filters, validation settings, tags), which goes beyond the annotation. It does not mention any side effects, which is consistent with the read-only annotation. No contradiction.

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 sentences, direct, and free of unnecessary detail. It front-loads the primary action ('Get the full RAW configuration') and then adds relevant specifics about the content and purpose. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's function.

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 description provides enough context for an agent to decide when to use this tool: it specifies the input (trigger ID) and the output (full config, including filters and associated tags) and the use case (diagnosis). It doesn't describe the output schema, but the tool has an output schema defined, so that is not a gap. The description adequately covers the tool's role in the larger workflow.

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 schema has three parameters (trigger_id required, gtm_account_id and gtm_container_id with defaults), but the description does not explain any of them. The tool name suggests trigger_id is the main identifier, but the purpose of the account and container IDs is not clarified. Since the schema coverage is 0%, the description must compensate but fails to do so, leaving the agent to infer their roles from context.

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 the tool retrieves the full RAW configuration for a single GTM trigger, listing specific content (filters, validation settings, tag list). It distinguishes itself from list_gtm_triggers by focusing on one trigger's detailed config, making it unambiguous.

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?

It explicitly says to use it to diagnose why a tag fires or not, providing a concrete use case. It does not explicitly say when to use list_gtm_triggers instead, but the sibling tool list_gtm_triggers is present, and the description's emphasis on 'single' and 'full configuration' implies the alternative. Slightly more guidance on when not to use would make it a 5.

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