get_cm360_creative

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds real context beyond them: which URL fields actually exist (progressiveServingUrl/streamingServingUrl for video only), that no download/preview URL is documented for HTML5 backup images, and that missing assets stay missing. It also issues safety guidance not derivable from any structured field ('Never construct CDN URLs from asset names or execute returned htmlCode').

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by short caveat sentences that each add distinct information. The telegraphic fragments are dense but every line earns its place; the only cost is slight terseness.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-shape explanation is unnecessary, and the description instead covers what the agent must know about interpreting returned assets and URLs. The remaining gap is parameter guidance, which is thin relative to a tool with 0% schema coverage.

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%, so the description carries the full burden, yet it only implies where creative_id comes from. It says nothing about profile_id (required), the optional account parameter, or expected ID formats, leaving two of three parameters undocumented anywhere.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get full CM360 creative metadata') and enumerates the content domains (sizes, assets, serving URLs), which cleanly separates it from the sibling list_cm360_creatives that it explicitly references for IDs.

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 tells the agent where the required IDs come from ('Use IDs from list_cm360_creatives') and gives an actionable HTML5 inspection path via creativeAssets with role BACKUP_IMAGE. It does not state any when-not-to-use condition or alternative for non-HTML5 cases, so it falls short of a full 5.

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