validate_datalayer_event

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 mentions the validation action and what it checks, but it does not disclose the return format, whether the tool is read-only, or any side effects. This leaves the agent without critical behavioral context for a validation tool.

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 one concise sentence that front-loads the verb and object, with no filler words. It efficiently communicates the core purpose.

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 or annotations, the description needs to explain what the validation result looks like and how strict the standards are. It does not, leaving a significant gap for an agent to understand what the tool returns or how to interpret the outcome.

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?

The schema documentation for the single parameter eventPayload and its nested properties is thorough (100% coverage). The description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 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 clearly states the tool validates a GTM DataLayer event payload against GA4 and e-commerce schema standards, with the specific outcome of detecting missing parameters or invalid types. This specific verb+resource+outcome distinguishes it from sibling tools like send_ga4_measurement_protocol_event.

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 use case—when you need to validate a DataLayer payload— but it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare with alternatives. The sibling tools are obviously different in function, but the guidance remains implicit rather than explicit.

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