get_creative

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

There are no annotations, so the description must carry the behavioral transparency burden. It clearly indicates a read-only operation ('get details'), but it does not disclose any potential side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or the content/format of the returned details. For a simple get operation this is minimal but adequate, though not rich.

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, focused sentence with no filler or redundant information. It conveys the essential verb, resource, and type distinction efficiently.

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 tool's low complexity (one required parameter, no output schema) and the clear type specification ('image creative'), the description is largely complete. It could be slightly improved by mentioning what details are returned or behavior for missing IDs, but that is not essential for this simple getter.

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 already has 100% coverage for the single 'id' parameter, and the description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond implying that the ID identifies the specific image creative. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline 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 'Get details of a specific image creative' uses a specific verb ('get details') and identifies the resource ('image creative'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_creatives, get_video_creative, or get_rich_media_creative. It is unambiguous and targeted.

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 implies usage by indicating you need a specific creative ID, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_creatives for browsing or other get_*_creative tools for non-image types. No exclusions or alternative tool references are provided.

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