Get Ads

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

With no annotations, the description carries the responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It communicates a read-only operation via 'retrieves' and specifies the creative fields returned. It does not discuss pagination or rate limits, but for a straightforward get operation the key behavior is sufficiently transparent.

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 first sentence is front-loaded and precise. The second sentence is slightly redundant, repeating headlines, descriptions, and images/videos, but it does add 'landing page URLs' and user-facing context, so it still contributes value. Overall the description is short and easy to scan.

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 list/retrieval tool with a fully documented schema and an output schema present, the description covers what an agent needs to understand the returned data. It could mention pagination or filtering behavior explicitly, but those are already encoded in the parameters.

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?

Input schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all seven parameters including filters, pagination, and status values. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond that, so the baseline 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 uses a specific verb ('Get') with a clear resource ('ads') and enumerates the concrete content returned (images, videos, headlines, descriptions, CTAs). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_campaigns and get_ad_accounts by focusing on the ad entity with creative 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?

The description provides a clear retrieval context: use this to fetch ads with complete creative content. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5, but an agent can confidently select it for ad-level creative data.

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