Find GTM runbooks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the 'active' qualifier and runbook categories, which is useful semantic context, but it does not reveal behavior such as search semantics, ordering, pagination, or what happens when no query is supplied.

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 a single short sentence with no filler, and the core action and scope are front-loaded. It earns a high score for economy, though the economy comes at the cost of necessary detail.

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?

For a simple read-only finder, the annotations carry the safety context, but with no output schema and no parameter descriptions the tool is only minimally actionable. Information about what fields are searchable, what the result set looks like, and when to prefer this over related catalog tools is missing.

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%: the input schema defines 'limit' and 'query' with no descriptions, and the tool description does not explain either parameter. An agent cannot tell what 'query' searches against or how 'limit' affects results, so the parameter semantics are effectively undocumented.

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 uses a specific verb ('Find') with a clear resource ('runbooks') and adds scope qualifiers ('active operating, incident, escalation, and recovery'). This clearly identifies the tool's domain, though it does not explicitly contrast it with sibling tools like gtm_search_catalog.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no mention of when gtm_search_catalog or other siblings would be more appropriate. The intended context must be inferred entirely from the tool name and terse description.

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