gtm_get_container

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses what data is returned (usage context and domains), but does not explicitly state it is a read-only operation with no side effects. As a 'get' tool, this is likely safe, but the absence of any statement about mutating behavior or permissions leaves a minor gap. The description adds some value beyond the tool name, but a 3 reflects the lack of explicit behavioral guarantees.

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 that leads with the core purpose ('Full detail for one container') followed by specifics. There is no wasted wording; it is concise yet informative. This is an example of excellent structure.

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 tool has an output schema (which presumably documents return fields), so return format is covered. However, the description fails to clarify how to specify which container (account_id and container_id) and whether these are required or optional. The schema marks both as optional with null defaults, which is misleading for a get-one operation. Without parameter guidance, an agent cannot reliably invoke the tool, making the description incomplete despite the output schema.

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 is responsible for explaining the parameters. It does not mention account_id or container_id at all, nor how to identify the container. The schema provides only titles ('Account Id', 'Container Id'), which are minimally informative, but the description adds zero guidance. This is a critical gap for selecting and populating parameters correctly.

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 returns full detail for one container, specifying the included context (web, server, ios, android, amp) and declared domains. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like gtm_list_containers (which lists containers) and gtm_container_snippet (which likely provides a snippet), making its purpose unambiguous.

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 a clear usage context: when an agent needs detailed information about a single container. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it (e.g., when a list is needed or when a snippet is required). The context is clear but lacks explicit exclusions, so a 4 is appropriate.

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