ad_manager_fb_get_integration

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the description does not need to repeat these. It adds no extra behavioral context beyond what annotations provide, such as defaulting locationId to GHL_LOCATION_ID (which is in the schema) or any side effects. Since annotations carry the safety profile and there is no contradiction, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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, compact sentence with zero filler. It is front-loaded and to the point. There is no wasted wording, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick comprehension.

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 this is a simple read operation with one optional parameter and strong annotations, the description is minimally adequate. However, it does not indicate what the integration object contains (no output schema), nor does it mention if a prior creation is required. For a tool in a larger ad manager suite where integration status matters, a bit more context (e.g., 'Retrieves the Facebook integration configuration for the location') would improve completeness, but it is not severely lacking.

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 covers the single parameter locationId with a description ('Location identifier Defaults to GHL_LOCATION_ID when omitted.'), giving 100% coverage. The tool description adds no additional meaning on top of the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting and the description adds no extra value.

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 Facebook integration' clearly states a retrieval action on a specific resource (Facebook integration), and the name disambiguates from Google or LinkedIn counterparts. However, it does not specify what aspects of the integration are returned or how it differs from a list or details variant, though no such sibling exists for Facebook. It is essentially a restatement of the name, but sufficient for basic understanding.

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. The description does not mention prerequisites (e.g., having an integration created), conditions under which this should be called, or contrast with siblings like ad_manager_fb_create_integration or ad_manager_google_get_integration. An agent would have to infer usage from the name alone.

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