Get completed reference-image search results. If the job is still running, returns polling guidance. Example: 'Show the matches from my reference-image search.'
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum number of hydrated creative records to return. Maximum 20. | |
| job_id | Yes | Job ID returned by submit_reference_image_search. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description carries the burden. It adds value by disclosing behavior for running jobs (returns polling guidance). However, it does not cover auth needs, rate limits, or other traits.
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; the first states the core purpose, the second adds a behavioral note and example. Front-loaded and efficient with no wasted words.
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 simple retrieval tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, edge case handling, and usage example. It is nearly complete, though lacking mention of response format or pagination.
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% with parameter descriptions. The description adds an example but does not enhance meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 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 the tool retrieves completed reference-image search results, with a specific example. It distinguishes from sibling tools like submit_reference_image_search and get_reference_image_search_status.
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 mentions that if the job is still running, it returns polling guidance, implying usage for both completed and in-progress jobs. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives like get_reference_image_search_status for status checking.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool serves a distinct purpose: searching creatives, advertiser profiles, game rankings, image similarity search workflow, etc. Overlaps like find_similar_creatives vs submit_reference_image_search are clearly separated by whether using an existing creative or a new image URL.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., get_creative_detail, search_advertisers, submit_reference_image_search) with snake_case. No mixed conventions or vague verbs.
12 tools cover the domain of mobile game ad intelligence without redundancy. The count feels appropriate—enough to handle common tasks (search, detail, rankings, image search) without overwhelming.
The tool set covers essential workflows: finding creatives via text or image, analyzing advertiser and game rankings, retrieving creative details and insights, and generating briefs. The async image search workflow is fully supported with submit, status, and results tools.
