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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing about pagination, the default limit of 25, or whether adset_id/campaign_id act as optional filters, which would be the useful behavioral context here.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the resource definition. The opening fragment ('The images, videos and texts of Meta ads, to analyze what runs') partially duplicates the second sentence, which is minor waste but not harmful.

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?

For a read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description states what is returned (images, videos, copy) and the scope (ad set or campaign), which is enough to call it correctly. Missing only return-shape and pagination detail, which is a small gap given the annotations.

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 four parameters are already documented, including the default limit and the act_ pattern. The phrase 'for ads in an ad set or campaign' loosely maps to the two optional ID filters but adds no format or precedence detail beyond 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 names a specific verb and resource ('Get creative details (images, videos, copy)') and scopes it to ads in an ad set or campaign, which separates it from generic siblings like get_ads or list_ads. It stops short of explicitly naming the sibling it replaces, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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?

'Use to analyze which creatives are running' implies the analysis use case, but there is no explicit when-not guidance and no mention of alternatives such as get_ads, list_ads, or get_creative_fatigue_metrics. The agent must infer the boundary from the sibling list.

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