ad_manager_fb_get_current_user

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds nothing about what data is returned, authentication needs, rate limits, or any side effects. It is consistent with annotations but provides no additional behavioral insight.

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 sentence, directly states the action, and contains no fluff. It is appropriately minimal and front-loaded.

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 simple read-only getter, the description is adequate but minimal. It does not explain what the returned user object contains, any dependencies on integration state, or how 'current' is determined. Given the absence of an output schema and the availability of sibling tools for other platforms, a bit more context (e.g., confirming this is for Facebook's Graph API) would improve completeness.

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 input schema provides 100% coverage for the single parameter 'locationId' with a clear description including its default behavior. The tool description does not mention the parameter, but the schema already documents it sufficiently, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 the verb 'get' and the resource 'current Facebook user', clearly identifying the operation. It distinguishes from similar tools for other platforms (e.g., ad_manager_google_get_current_user) by naming Facebook, though this is already in the tool name. It is concise and unambiguous, though it lacks additional scope details.

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 versus alternatives. It does not mention that this is specific to Facebook, nor does it reference any prerequisite (e.g., having an active Facebook integration) or context like verifying the current authenticated user. An agent gets no help in deciding between this and the Google or LinkedIn counterparts beyond the name.

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