Get GTM account context

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, and the 'Find' verb is consistent with a non-mutating read. The description adds the breadth of retrieval (multiple entity types in one call) but discloses no further behavioral traits such as query semantics, aggregation behavior, or result structure. With strong annotation coverage, a 3 is appropriate.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with an immediate verb and a compact list of retrieved entities — no filler or repetition. It is efficient, though the brevity comes at the cost of the missing usage and parameter guidance noted above.

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 broad multi-entity retrieval tool with an ambiguous required query parameter, no output schema, and 14 overlapping siblings, the description is too thin. It should clarify what a query returns, how limit applies, and how results relate to the sibling tools, none of which is addressed.

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% and the description does not compensate: it never explains what the required 'query' parameter does (keyword search across entities? account name match?) or what 'limit' bounds. The schema provides only types, min/max, and a default, leaving both parameters semantically ambiguous 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 states a specific verb ('Find') and resource (platform account context) and enumerates the entity types retrieved: IDs, contacts, APIs, owners, agencies/vendors, integrations, runbooks, systems. However, several listed outputs overlap directly with sibling tools (runbooks vs gtm_find_runbooks, owners vs gtm_resolve_ownership), so the tool is not clearly differentiated from its siblings.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus any of its 14 siblings. Given that gtm_find_runbooks and gtm_resolve_ownership overlap with outputs named in the description, the absence of any 'use this instead of X' or aggregation note leaves an agent to guess, which is a significant gap.

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