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

Annotations already mark this as read-only and non-destructive. The description adds valuable context about the async polling pattern and the relationship to generate_ad_studio, which annotations do not convey. It could add more about what states the generation may be in, but the output schema likely covers return structure.

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 sentences with zero filler: first states the operation, second gives the critical usage caveat. Information is front-loaded and every word earns its place.

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 single-parameter, read-only fetch with an output schema and clear polling guidance, the description is complete. An agent knows what to call, when to call it, and how it relates to the generation workflow without needing additional context.

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 coverage is 100% and the sole parameter id is already described as 'Ad Studio generation id from generate_ad_studio.' The description adds no further semantic detail beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 applies.

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 specific verb ('Fetch') and resource ('an Ad Studio generation'), clearly distinguishing it from the sibling generate_ad_studio and related generation tools. Even with many similar get_* siblings, the 'Ad Studio' qualifier makes the scope unambiguous.

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 gives explicit workflow guidance: submit via generate_ad_studio, then poll this tool, and do not block on generate_ad_studio for the full render. This directly tells the agent when to use this tool versus the alternative it is paired with.

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