ad_manager_google_get_integration

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, conveying that this is a safe, read-only operation. The description adds no additional behavioral context such as return format, authentication needs, or potential variability (openWorldHint). Thus, it provides no value beyond 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?

The description is a single, succinct sentence with no redundancy. It is front-loaded and efficient, though it could afford a bit more detail without becoming verbose.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should explain what the tool returns; it does not. It also fails to define 'integration' or any prerequisites. While the operation is simple, an agent needs at least a hint of the return payload to know what to expect.

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% (the sole parameter locationId has a clear description including a default), so the baseline is 3. The tool description does not add any parameter-level semantics; it relies entirely on the schema.

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 ('Google integration'), but is vague about what an integration is or what it returns. It distinguishes from siblings by the 'Google' qualifier (e.g., ad_manager_fb_get_integration), but lacks specificity about the integration's nature or contents.

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 like ad_manager_fb_get_integration or ad_manager_li_get_integration. The description does not mention any conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent 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.