Search GTM data catalog

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

Annotations already communicate readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the searchable-scope behavior but does not explain pagination, matching semantics, result shape, or what the openWorldHint=false means in practice.

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 with no filler, front-loading the verb and using every phrase to communicate scope. The long list is necessary because the tool searches across many record types.

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 search tool with five optional filter parameters and no output schema, the description is too thin. It does not mention how filters narrow results, what the return value contains, or when to use a targeted sibling instead. The safe-read behavior is covered by annotations, but operational guidance 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%, so the description needed to compensate for the five parameters. It only indirectly documents the recordTypes enum by listing its values in prose; query, limit, lifecycle, and verificationState receive no semantic explanation beyond their parameter names.

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 specific verb 'Search' and names the full catalog scope: people, teams, agencies, vendors, systems, accounts, integrations, definitions, measurement assets, runbooks, policies, and reports. This clearly distinguishes it from more targeted sibling getters like gtm_get_record or gtm_get_data_definition.

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 general lookup usage by listing many searchable categories, but it gives no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over siblings or when to use a more specific getter. There are no exclusions or routing hints.

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