get_ad_creatives

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that access_token is optional and will use a cached token if not provided, which is useful. It also notes the ad_id requirement. However, it does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only, nor does it mention error cases or rate limits, leaving some behavioral traits undisclosed.

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 (two lines plus an args list) with the purpose stated upfront. Every sentence adds value, including the workflow hint and parameter details. No redundant information is present.

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 getter with an output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, and parameters adequately. It includes a helpful pointer to get_ads and clarifies the required input. It does not mention error handling or edge cases, but given the tool's simplicity and existing output schema, it is largely 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter: ad_id is 'Meta Ads ad ID (required)' and access_token is 'Meta API access token (optional - will use cached token if not provided)'. This adds meaningful context beyond the schema's type/required fields.

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 'Get creative details for a specific ad' with a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes from siblings by specifying 'Requires an ad_id (not account_id)' and pointing to get_ads for finding IDs, which differentiates it from tools like get_creative_details or get_ad_details.

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?

It explicitly says 'Use get_ads first to find ad IDs', giving a clear workflow. It also clarifies the input constraint 'not account_id'. However, it does not mention alternative tools like get_creative_details when only a creative ID is available, but this is not a significant omission.

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