zuckerbot_get_ad_asset_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It transparently explains that ready=true must be observed before proceeding, that a derived thumbnail_url accompanies it, and that polling is the expected pattern. It does not disclose failure states or how processing errors surface, but the core polling behavior is well covered.

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 three tight sentences with no filler. It front-loads the status-check purpose, then presents the ready semantics and polling cadence, with every sentence earning 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?

Given the lack of an output schema, the description sufficiently explains the return signal (ready=true), the derived thumbnail_url, and the down-stream VIDEO ref usage. It stops short of covering processing-failure states or what to do if the status never becomes ready, so it is not fully exhaustive, but it is complete enough for normal use.

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%, so the parameters are already fully documented in the input schema. The description adds the useful context that video_id comes from zuckerbot_upload_ad_asset, but it does not otherwise deepen meaning beyond the schema's own descriptions.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Check Meta's processing status for a video uploaded with zuckerbot_upload_ad_asset.' It clearly identifies the tool as a status-checking endpoint and distinguishes it from uploading, creation, and generic creative-status tools by tying it to the ad-asset upload flow.

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 a clear execution context: call it after uploading an ad asset and before using the video in zuckerbot_create_ad or a from-spec VIDEO ref. It also gives explicit polling guidance (every 15–30 seconds while ready=false), though it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative status tools.

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