ad_manager_google_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, covering the safety profile. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the name—it doesn't explain whether authentication is required, what the response contains, or any side effects (which are none). With annotations present, the bar is lowered, but the description still fails to add any useful behavioral detail.

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 extremely concise (four words), which is not verbose, but it is under-specified. It is front-loaded but provides minimal information. While it doesn't waste words, it could benefit from a brief mention of what the user represents or what callers can do with the result, so it earns a middle score.

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?

This is a read-only tool with no output schema and no required parameters, so the description should explain what the returned 'current user' actually is (e.g., profile information, credentials). Without that, an agent can't predict the output or use it correctly. The description is too sparse to be complete for a tool that returns data.

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 description for locationId is complete ('Location identifier Defaults to GHL_LOCATION_ID when omitted.'), and schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The tool description itself adds no additional parameter semantics, but since the schema already documents the only parameter, no extra credit is earned.

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 a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('current Google user'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like ad_manager_fb_get_current_user and ad_manager_li_get_current_user by platform. However, it doesn't clarify what 'current' means (e.g., authenticated user) or what specific data is returned, so it stops short of full clarity.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention that this is the Google variant of current-user retrieval, nor does it address prerequisites like OAuth or the meaning of the locationId parameter. An agent has to infer usage from the name and siblings.

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