vast42_get_universal_ad_id

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 behavioral disclosure. 'Get' implies a safe read operation, but the description does not disclose the return format (e.g., whether it returns the full ad object or just the ID), error behavior (e.g., not found), permissions required, or any other side effects. This is a minimal gap, but without annotations, more context is needed.

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, 'Get a single VAST 4.2 universal ad ID,' with no redundant words, filler, or repetition. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the core action and resource.

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 is simple with one parameter and no output schema, so the description is mostly sufficient. However, it does not specify what the response contains (e.g., full ad details) or any error conditions. Given the low complexity, this is acceptable but leaves some gaps for an agent relying solely on the description.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% because the single parameter 'id' is already described as 'VAST 4.2 universal ad ID' in the input schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema 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 'Get a single VAST 4.2 universal ad ID' clearly states the verb (get), resource (universal ad ID), and scope (single), distinguishing it from sibling tools like vast42_list_universal_ad_ids, create, update, and delete. It is concise and unambiguous, though it does not explicitly mention 'by ID' or 'retrieves the full object'.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as the list function when multiple IDs are needed or create/update/delete for modifications. Usage is only implied by the name and the 'single' qualifier, but no alternatives or exclusions are stated.

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