get_rich_media_ad_item

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, but 'Get details' adds no behavioral context beyond the tool name. It does not disclose return format, permissions, or error behavior, nor does it describe what 'details' include; it simply restates the tool's purpose without enriching transparency.

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 concise sentence with no extraneous information. It is efficiently front-loaded and every word contributes to clarity.

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 single-item getter with one parameter, the description is minimally adequate. However, without an output schema or annotations, it leaves gaps about the return structure and potential error conditions, making it not fully complete.

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 100% of parameters, with 'id' described as 'Ad item ID'. The tool description adds no additional meaning to the parameter beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 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 clearly states the action ('Get details') and the resource ('specific rich media ad item'), which distinguishes it from list tools like 'list_rich_media_ad_items' and other ad item getters by type. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives as seen in high-scoring examples.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools such as 'get_ad' or 'get_image_ad_item'. It does not mention any alternatives or exclusion criteria, offering only the basic function without context.

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