Get GTM data definition

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description's 'Find' wording agrees with those annotations (no contradiction). However, the description adds no behavioral detail beyond that—no query matching behavior, no pagination/limit effect, no return format—so annotations carry the entire burden.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler words, making it easy to parse. It is slightly over-terse but structurally clean.

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?

With no output schema, no parameter descriptions, and no usage guidance, this minimal description is not sufficient for confident invocation beyond the obvious first argument. An agent would not know exact-match semantics, limit behavior, or how this differs from nearby read/search siblings.

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 never mentions the 'query' or 'limit' parameters. The agent is left to guess that 'query' is a search term and what 'limit' controls, so the description fails to compensate for the undocumented schema.

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 concrete verb ('Find') and names a specific resource ('governed business-term and technical-field definitions'), so an agent can tell what the tool targets. It does not distinguish this tool from siblings such as gtm_search_catalog or gtm_get_record, so it stops short of a 5.

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 statement of when to use this tool, when not to use it, or which sibling tools are alternatives. The one-sentence description gives no decision context for selecting it over gtm_search_catalog or gtm_get_record.

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