serve_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. It discloses the HTTP method (POST /adserve) and that it returns ads 'that would be served', suggesting it's a simulation. However, it does not mention potential side effects (e.g., whether impressions are logged), authentication requirements, or behavior when no ad is available.

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 concise and front-loaded: 'Request ad delivery for a zone' immediately states the action. It includes the return value, use case, and HTTP method in three short sentences with no redundant information.

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 and no output schema, and the description stays minimal. It explains the core purpose but does not describe the response format or highlight critical parameters like 'type' (json vs jsonr) or the requirements for 'ip' and 'referrer'. This leaves some gaps for an agent trying to invoke it correctly, though the schema provides parameter-level completeness.

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% description coverage for all 16 parameters, so the description does not need to repeat parameter details. The text adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, which is acceptable at the baseline level.

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's purpose: 'Request ad delivery for a zone' and 'Returns the ad(s) that would be served'. This uses a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_ad or vast42_get_ad. The added phrase 'useful for verifying ad setup' clarifies its intended use case.

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 clear use case: 'useful for verifying ad setup'. It implies this tool is for testing/diagnosing rather than actual ad serving. While it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, the context is sufficient given the large sibling list.

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