gtm_get_entity

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavior itself. It does state the tool returns a full entity with its parameter tree, and it warns that 'tag and trigger parameter shapes are strict', adding practical context. It doesn't mention side effects (none expected for a fetch) or auth requirements, but for a read operation this is adequate.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and the subsequent sentence adds actionable advice with no fluff. Every sentence 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?

The tool has an output schema (which may cover return details) and a moderate number of parameters. The description gives usage context but fails to explain how to identify the entity (account/container/workspace context) or what the parameter tree is exactly. For a tool with zero schema descriptions, it lacks the guidance needed to call it correctly without external knowledge.

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. It does not explain any of the function parameters (entity_type, entity_id, account_id, container_id, workspace_id). The only hint is the mention of 'tag and trigger', which suggests entity types, but no concrete guidance on how to fill each parameter. This is a significant 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 states a clear verb ('Fetch'), a specific resource ('one entity'), and adds scope with 'in full, including its parameter tree'. This distinguishes it from listing tools like gtm_list_entities and other GTM getters. The purpose is 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 gives explicit advice: 'Read a working entity of the same type before creating a new one.' This is a clear when-to-use scenario. It doesn't name alternatives explicitly, but the context (before creating) implies the tool is for reading. There's no mention of when not to use, but the guidance is strong.

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