meta get creative assets

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the description only needs to add value beyond those. It does so by describing the enrichment behavior: real ad names, collection covers, all carousel/flexible components, resolved hashes and video URLs, plus the separate classification of catalog-only ads. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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?

Three dense, front-loaded sentences with no filler. Every clause adds information: what is returned, how catalog-only ads are handled, where to go for an interactive gallery, and what remains available for diagnostics.

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 read-only enrichment tool with complete schema documentation, existing annotations, and an output schema, this description is sufficient. It clarifies the value-add output, the catalog-only edge case, and the escape hatch for raw diagnostics or interactive browsing, leaving no critical selection or invocation gap.

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%, so the baseline is 3 even though the description itself adds no parameter-specific detail. The description's 'ad-linked' phrasing implies the identifier parameters, but all syntax, defaults, bounds, and selection behavior are already carried by the schema.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Return ad-linked creative media') and enumerates concrete outputs: actual ad names, collection covers, carousel/flexible components, resolved image hashes, and video URLs. It also signals boundary cases (catalog-only ads) and distinguishes its enriched output from raw creative metadata.

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 gives clear context for when this tool is appropriate: resolving ad-linked creative media with enriched human-readable assets. It also provides a when-not signal by routing interactive visual gallery needs to GetMCPAds and noting raw metadata remains available for diagnostics. It does not explicitly name the sibling meta_get_creatives as the raw-metadata alternative, so the guidance is slightly below fully explicit.

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