Trace GTM data lineage

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds the 'governed' qualifier and the four-level depth limit, which gives some behavioral context, but it does not disclose output shape, pagination, or any operational side effects.

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 no filler. It communicates the core action, the resource, the scope, and the depth limit efficiently. Every word earns its place.

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?

Given there is no output schema and no parameter descriptions, the description is adequate for recognizing the tool's purpose but leaves gaps around what the trace result looks like and how direction/depth interact. For a read-only lineage tool this is serviceable but not complete.

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 must compensate, and it partially does: 'upstream and downstream' maps to the direction parameter, and 'up to four levels' aligns with depth. However, recordId is not explained, and the default/combination behavior of depth and direction is left to inference.

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 ('Trace') and a concrete resource ('GTM data lineage'), and it states the exact scope: governed upstream and downstream relationships up to four levels. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like gtm_get_record and gtm_get_data_definition, which address different data concerns.

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 makes it implicit that this tool is for tracing lineage relationships, but it does not provide explicit when-to-use guidance or contrast with alternative tools. An agent can infer the use case from the wording, but there are no exclusions or sibling routing hints.

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