get_ad_for_clone

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It discloses that the tool returns durable media for cloning and specifically notes when it returns clonable=false with a reason (only a still archived). It does not explicitly state read-only behavior, but as a 'get' operation it is implied, and the description is sufficiently clear about its outcomes.

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 sentences) and well-structured, presenting the purpose, usage context, and an important edge case without unnecessary fluff. Every sentence adds value.

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 description covers the main purpose, usage context, and a notable edge case. It implies the normal return (the ad with durable media) by stating what it retrieves. Since there is no output schema, the description is reasonably complete, though it does not explicitly enumerate the success return structure; however, for a simple get tool, this is adequate.

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 schema provides a description for the single parameter asset_id, listing possible ID types (watch_asset / ad-library / tiktok / swipe id). The description does not add further meaning beyond that, but since schema coverage is 100% and the type is clear, the baseline score 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 clearly states the tool retrieves an archived public ad by ID for cloning, with specific mention of durable media (video, poster, permalink, copy). It distinguishes from search tools by emphasizing 'resolution by id, never a scan of a cached page' and provides usage context for when a deep link or slate item points to an asset not in the local corpus.

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?

Explicit usage guidance is provided: 'Use when a deep link or a slate item names an asset the local corpus does not hold' and clarifies the approach (by ID, not cached scan). It also describes the edge-case behavior when only a still is archived, which helps the agent know when to expect a failure or fallback.

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