Tag Manager version history

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

While the readOnlyHint annotation already indicates safety, the description adds behavioral details: it lists only published versions (not drafts) and mentions the ordering (newest first). These are meaningful behavioral constraints not present in the annotations.

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 compact, with no redundant wording. Two sentences efficiently cover purpose, ordering, and a usage workflow. It is well-structured and easy to parse.

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 mentions that version headers include version_id, name, and entity counts, giving a preview of the output shape. It lacks details on pagination (e.g., how to use page_size) or error handling, but the described workflow is sufficient for most use cases. Given the presence of an output schema (not shown), the description is 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?

The schema provides no descriptions for page_size, gtm_account_id, or gtm_container_id, and the description does not clarify them. Although the parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, the lack of any detail (e.g., whether gtm_account_id is required, how page_size affects results) leaves ambiguity for an agent.

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 action (list), the resource (GTM version history), and the ordering (newest first). It also distinguishes this tool from get_gtm_version and other list_* tools by focusing on published versions.

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 provides a concrete use case (correlating metric drops with recent publishes) and a step-by-step workflow: fetch versions, find timestamps, then call get_gtm_version for details. This makes it obvious when to use this tool versus alternatives.

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