ad_manager_fb_get_entity

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. However, the description adds virtually no behavioral context, such as whether it returns a single entity or a list, or how over-fetching works. This is a bare minimum that fails to build on the 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?

Two words is not conciseness but under-specification. A useful definition would front-load the purpose and key parameters; this one gives the agent nothing actionable and is far too terse to be considered well-structured.

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 9 parameters, no output schema, and a large set of sibling tools, the one-phrase description is grossly inadequate. It does not explain which parameters are required for different entity types, what the response looks like, or how it fits within the broader ad_manager_fb set – leaving an agent unable to call it correctly.

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%, so all 9 parameters are individually documented. The description itself provides no additional meaning about parameter relationships, such as which identifiers combine with entityType, or the purpose of flags like 'fetchAll' and 'next' – the schema already does the heavy lifting, so a 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 entities' is a direct restatement of the tool name, providing no specific verb-resource detail or entity types. It doesn't mention that it retrieves campaign, adset, or ad entities from Facebook ads, nor does it distinguish itself from the many sibling get_* tools.

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 usage guidance is given. The description does not explain when to choose this generic tool over more specific ones like ad_manager_fb_get_campaign or ad_manager_fb_get_ad_account, nor does it mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or pagination behavior.

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