Get GTM personnel map

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

Annotations already mark the tool as readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, and the description's 'Return' aligns with that. The description adds useful context beyond annotations by specifying 'active responsibility relationships' and listing the four included entity types, though it does not discuss output shape or pagination.

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. It states the core action, the result scope, and the active-relationship condition in minimal space, making it easy to scan.

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 tool this is a usable minimum: an agent can call it with no parameters and know broadly what it returns. However, without an output schema or parameter guidance, the meaning of `query` and the exact response shape are left undefined, so some important context 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% and the description does not mention `limit` or `query` at all. The parameter names hint at a result cap and free-text search, but the search target is undocumented, so the description fails to compensate for the missing schema-level explanations.

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 opens with the verb 'Return' and names a specific resource: people, teams, agencies, and vendors with active responsibility relationships. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like gtm_get_measurement_inventory and gtm_resolve_ownership without needing to inspect the schema.

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 implies use whenever an active personnel/responsibility map is needed, but it never states when to prefer this over related siblings such as gtm_resolve_ownership. There is no explicit when-not guidance or comparison to alternatives.

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