clients_get

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility. It correctly indicates a read operation ('Get') but offers no additional behavioral details such as rate limits, authentication requirements, or error handling. The simplicity keeps it from being misleading but leaves gaps.

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 concise sentence, containing no wasted words. It is efficiently front-loaded and easy to parse.

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?

For a getter tool with 4 required parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not mention what the tool returns (the client resource) or common error conditions (e.g., not found). Given the complexity of the GTM API, more context is warranted.

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 coverage is 100% (all 4 parameters have descriptions), so the description does not need to compensate. However, it adds no extra context beyond the schema, such as how parameters relate (e.g., clientId is unique within workspace). The baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'Get a specific GTM client' clearly states the action (get) and resource (GTM client). It is distinguishable from siblings like 'clients_list' by implying a single entity, though it does not explicitly mention the identifier parameter.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives like clients_list or clients_create. There are no prerequisites or context given for invoking this tool correctly.

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