GTM: Export container (live version)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the meaningful behavioral detail that the default target is the live version and that containerVersionId re-targets the read, but it says nothing about output volume, structure, or how large a container export can be.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with what is read, then requirements, then the optional-parameter branch. No filler, though the final sentence is dense and packs provenance plus rationale into one clause.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing the return, and it does so briefly ('overview of all tags, triggers and variables'). Combined with ID provenance and default-target behavior, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only return shape/size detail is missing.

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%, so the baseline is 3; the description earns above that by documenting ID provenance (which sibling tool supplies each value) and by explaining that containerVersionId switches the read from live to a historical version rather than just 'optional'.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: reads the published (live) version of a GTM container and returns tags, triggers and variables. It distinguishes live from versioned reads, though it never names the close siblings gtm_export_version or gtm_export_workspace, leaving overlap with them to be inferred.

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?

Gives a concrete use case ('ideal for tracking audits') and tells the agent where each ID comes from (accountId/containerId from gtm_list_accounts, containerVersionId from gtm_list_versions), plus when to reach for the optional versioning path (before a rollback). No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance against the workspace/version export siblings.

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