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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context beyond that: the 1-50 item cap and the per-item shape of the response. It says nothing, though, about partial-failure behavior when some selection_keys are invalid, or about pagination via cursor.

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?

A single compact clause that front-loads the verb and the batch constraint before the payload description. No filler, no repetition of the tool name, and every fragment carries information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value detail is not required, and annotations cover the read-only profile. What remains missing is the routing logic to siblings and any explanation of cursor/connection_context, leaving the definition only minimally viable for an agent to call it correctly.

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 0% across 3 parameters, so the description must carry the burden. It only implies that selection_keys identify creatives ('by selection_key'); the 'cursor' and 'connection_context' parameters are left entirely unexplained in both schema and description.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get ... creatives') with batch scope ('1-50', 'by selection_key') and even enumerates the return payload (per-item status, details, signed links). This is clear, but it never names the sibling it complements (e.g. creatives_get for a single item), so an agent must infer the batch-vs-single distinction from the name alone.

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 no when-to-use guidance and never references alternatives like creatives_get, creatives_list, or creatives_list_cloud. An agent has no stated condition telling it whether to batch-fetch here or fetch one at a time.

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