meta get creatives

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that it returns creative details and lists content categories, but does not disclose behavior beyond that, such as pagination or how optional adIds affects results. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Two short sentences, no filler. The main verb and resource are front-loaded, and the content-type list earns its place.

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, simple 3-parameter tool with a full schema and output schema, the description is adequate. It could be more complete by noting that adIds is optional and specifying what happens when it is omitted, but nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

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%: adAccountId, adIds, and limit all have meaningful schema descriptions. The tool description adds no semantic detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Get ad creative content') and enumerates content types returned (text, images, videos, links, call-to-action), so an agent can tell what the tool does. It does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling meta_get_creative_assets, so it stops short of 5.

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?

There is no guidance about when to reach for this tool versus alternatives such as meta_get_creative_assets, meta_list_ad_images, or meta_list_ad_videos. The phrase 'for specified ads' implies a use case, but no exclusions, prerequisites, or sibling routing are offered.

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