get_creative

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. 'Get details' clearly implies a read-only, non-destructive operation, which is a useful behavioral signal. However, it does not disclose the response format, error behavior (e.g., if the ID is invalid), or any permission requirements. For a simple getter, this is minimal but acceptable, though it leaves some ambiguity.

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 a single, tightly worded sentence that fully conveys the tool's purpose in eight words. It is well front-loaded and contains no filler or redundant 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?

This is a simple getter with only two parameters, both fully described in the schema, and no output schema to explain. The description is adequate for an agent to select and invoke it, but it could be slightly more complete by mentioning that 'fields' is optional or that the returned details can be customized. Overall, it is complete enough for its simplicity.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%: both 'fields' and 'creative_id' have explicit descriptions. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 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 verb 'Get details' and the specific resource 'ad creative' with the qualifier 'by ID.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'list_creatives' (which lists all creatives) and 'create_creative'/'update_creative' (which write). The purpose is 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 phrase 'by ID' clearly implies this tool should be used when a specific creative ID is known, and it contrasts with list-type tools. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions like 'use list_creatives to see all creatives,' so it provides clear context but no explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

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