tiktok get spark ads

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the 'conservative fallback if Spark-specific fields are not supported' behavior, which is a useful behavioral trait beyond annotations. However, it doesn't disclose error handling, rate limits, or what 'conservative' means in practice.

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 a single, compact sentence with no filler. It front-loads the primary action (return Spark Ads context) and mentions the fallback. It is concise but not overly terse, earning a strong score.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (4 parameters, no nested objects), the presence of an output schema, and the annotations covering safety, the description adequately covers what an agent needs. The fallback behavior is mentioned, and the return format is handled by the output schema. Nothing critical is missing, though the meaning of 'Spark Ads context' could be elaborated.

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 all four parameters (adIds, limit, adgroupId, advertiserId) are already documented. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides. The baseline of 3 applies since the schema carries the full burden.

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 returns Spark Ads context from ad fields, with a specific fallback behavior. It distinguishes itself from siblings like tiktok_get_spark_organic_joins by naming the resource (Spark Ads) and the conservative fallback. However, it doesn't explicitly state what 'Spark Ads context' includes, relying on the output schema for detail.

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 implies usage for retrieving Spark Ads context when available, but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it mention alternatives among the sibling tools. The fallback behavior hints at graceful handling, but the agent is left to infer the appropriate context for invocation.

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