Detect GTM Tech Stack

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds valuable context: the need for an APIFY_TOKEN, credit consumption, and the output structure. No contradiction with annotations.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by output format and usage constraints. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 the tool's simplicity (2 parameters, simple output), the description provides all necessary context: what it does, input requirements, output format, and side effects (credit consumption). No output schema exists, but the description adequately specifies the return value.

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 100%, but the description adds further context: for 'crawl_additional_pages', it explains the behavior (crawl up to 2 extra pages) and default value (true). For 'domain', it specifies the format (bare domain, e.g., stripe.com). This meaningfully supplements the schema.

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 verb 'Detect' and the resource 'GTM tools from a company's public website', and specifies the output format (flat, Clay-ready JSON row with boolean flags). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'aggregate_gtm_signals'.

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 provides clear context: it is read-only, requires an APIFY_TOKEN, and consumes credits. It implies when to use (to detect GTM stack from a website). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternatives.

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