get_ad

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only mentions the HTTP method and that it retrieves an ad, omitting any details about response format, whether it is read-only, authentication requirements, or server-side request constraints. The schema notes some required fields but the description itself adds little 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 two short sentences: the first states the purpose, the second the key differentiator from serve_ad. Every word earns its place, with no redundant or filler content.

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?

The tool has 16 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description provides minimal context. It does not describe the return value, error behavior, or the practical context of ad serving. The referral to serve_ad helps only if the agent already knows serve_ad, but the description is insufficient on its own for a tool of this complexity.

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 covers all 16 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the schema already carries the parameter semantics. The description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning beyond a weak cross-reference to serve_ad's parameter set, which does not compensate for any gaps since none exist.

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 tool retrieves an ad via a GET request, using a specific verb and resource. It explicitly contrasts with serve_ad ('Same parameters as serve_ad but uses GET instead of POST'), distinguishing it from the most similar sibling tool.

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 provides a direct comparison to serve_ad, telling the agent that this tool is the GET variant of serve_ad. This implies when to use it (when GET is needed) and clearly differentiates from serve_ad, though it does not discuss other alternatives or explicit exclusion criteria.

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