Resolve GTM ownership

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

Annotations already communicate that the tool is read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description does not need to restate those guarantees. It adds a little behavioral color by listing the ownership categories, but it does not disclose anything beyond that, such as how resolution is performed or what the output shape will be. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 sentence and front-loads the action and resource before enumerating the relevant ownership roles. It is efficient and free of filler, though the list of seven roles feels a bit repetitive since they all fall under the same ownership concept.

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 tool with two undocumented optional parameters and no output schema, the description is not complete enough for an agent to know what inputs to provide or what response to expect. It does not explain whether to pass a query, a recordId, or both, nor does it clarify the return format. The read-only annotations mitigate safety concerns but do not resolve this operational gap.

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 'query' or 'recordId' (0% coverage), and the description does not compensate by explaining how these parameters relate to resolving ownership. It is unclear whether they are alternatives, required in combination, or how each is interpreted. The description adds no parameter-level meaning at all.

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 ('Resolve') with a clear resource ('GTM ownership') and enumerates the concrete ownership roles involved: owners, operators, approvers, backups, agencies, vendors, and escalation contacts. It is clearly not a tautology and gives the agent a concrete sense of what the tool produces, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools such as gtm_get_personnel_map.

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 offers no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives, no exclusions, and no context such as prerequisites or typical scenarios. It simply states the capability, leaving the agent to infer when 'resolve ownership' applies; it does not even explain whether to use it instead of gtm_get_personnel_map 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.