draft_get_image_ad_item

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states 'Get details,' which is essentially the tool's core purpose. It does not disclose whether the operation is read-only (though implied), what happens for non-existent IDs, or any authentication requirements, providing no additional behavioral context.

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 sentence of eight words, front-loaded with the verb and resource. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundancy or fluff.

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 read operation with one parameter, the description is minimally sufficient, but it lacks details about the return payload or any special behavior of draft items. Given no output schema and no explanation of what 'details' include, the agent must rely on assumptions about the API's standard getter behavior.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with a single 'id' parameter described as 'Draft ad item ID,' so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds minimal meaning by stating 'specific' and 'draft image ad item,' which reinforces the parameter's role, but it does not go beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get details') and identifies the resource ('specific draft image ad item'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like draft_get_rich_media_ad_item or draft_get_custom_html_ad_item by the 'image' qualifier. It does not explicitly contrast with non-draft get_image_ad_item, but the 'draft' prefix in both the name and description conveys the scope.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as draft_get_ad_item or the non-draft get_image_ad_item. The description does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or typical use cases, leaving the agent to infer from the tool name alone.

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