ghl_ad_google_current_user_get

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by specifying the HTTP GET endpoint and OAuth scopes, providing auth context. No contradictions exist, but additional behavioral details (e.g., rate limits, effect of isDraft) are absent.

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 concise, front-loading the purpose and including endpoint, version, source, and OAuth scopes. Every sentence adds relevant information, though the endpoint details could be streamlined.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description does not hint at the return structure or shape of 'user info.' While endpoint and scopes are given, the lack of return type information leaves a gap for a read-only tool.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100% with both parameters (isDraft, locationId) having descriptions. The description does not enhance parameter semantics beyond the schema, so a baseline of 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 clearly states 'Get current Google user' and 'Retrieve the authenticated Google user info for a location,' using a specific verb and resource. This effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like ghl_ad_fb_current_user_get and ghl_ad_li_current_user_get by specifying 'Google' and 'ad-publishing.'

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. Context like 'Google user' and 'location' hints at its domain, but no when-not or alternative tool references are provided. While it mentions OAuth scopes, usage guidelines remain implicit.

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