get_ad_code

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the mechanism (curl_cffi), the headless nature, and an 'unlimited' usage characteristic. But it omits potential prerequisites, side effects, error behavior, and what 'unlimited' specifically refers to.

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 terse sentence with no filler. The primary action ('Get current ad access code') is front-loaded, and the implementation notes are compactly appended.

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 parameterless tool with an output schema, the description adequately states what is fetched and how. Minor gaps remain around the meaning of 'unlimited' and how this relates to sibling status tools, but none prevent an agent from invoking it.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the empty input schema is already complete. The description makes no misleading parameter claims, and the baseline for zero-parameter tools 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 clear verb ('Get') and a specific resource ('current ad access code'), and adds implementation context (curl_cffi, no browser) that helps differentiate it from sibling tools about generator info and user key status. It doesn't explain what an 'ad access code' is, but the action and target are 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?

Phrases like 'no browser' and 'unlimited' imply this tool is a straightforward, headless way to fetch the current ad code and can be called freely. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to choose this over alternatives such as get_user_key_status or get_generator_info.

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