gtm_audit_container

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and handles it well: it communicates a one-call audit, implies a read-only health-check behavior, lists report categories, and discloses that findings are ordered by severity. It does not state auth requirements or behavior on invalid IDs, but for a non-mutating audit this is a reasonable gap.

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 compact, front-loads the core value proposition, and uses a clear list of finding categories. Every sentence contributes useful information and nothing is redundant or padded.

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?

The output schema covers returned data, and the description covers finding categories, but the full picture is incomplete: parameter targeting semantics are absent, and there is no guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling GTM audit or coverage tools. An agent is left to guess how to populate the three optional IDs.

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?

All three parameters have zero description coverage in the schema, and the description never explains how account_id, container_id, and workspace_id should be provided or combined to target a container. The schema names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description does not compensate for the 0% coverage gap.

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 clearly states the tool performs a 'full container health check' and enumerates the specific finding categories, so an agent knows exactly what the tool reports. It is less than 5 because it never explicitly differentiates itself from the overlapping sibling gtm_tag_coverage.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided, and no alternatives like gtm_tag_coverage or gtm_find_references are mentioned. The agent must infer that this is the right call based on the name and the general audit context.

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