list_gtm_containers

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by explicitly listing the return fields (container_id, public_id, name, usage context) and their relevance, going beyond the annotations. However, it does not mention pagination or limits, if any exist.

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 very concise with two sentences, no wasted words, and front-loads the core action. The second sentence efficiently lists key return fields.

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?

Given the simple one-parameter tool with a read-only annotation and an output schema, the description is mostly complete. It lists return fields and hints at usage (for audit_event_coverage). Missing a brief explanation of the parameter, but overall adequate.

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 0%, so the description must explain the parameter, but it does not mention gtm_account_id at all. It fails to explain what the parameter is, how to obtain it, or its relation to sibling tools like list_gtm_accounts.

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 'List all containers under a GTM account', specifying the exact resource and action. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by listing return fields and explicitly mentioning that container_id is needed by audit_event_coverage, which differentiates it from other list tools.

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 implicitly suggests use via mentioning container_id for audit_event_coverage, but explicitly does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_gtm_accounts or list_gtm_tags. No usage exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided.

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