x ads get card

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

Annotations already establish this as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that by noting that Native X fields and pagination are preserved and that monetary fields ending in _micro are millionths of the account currency. This gives the agent meaningful response-shape expectations.

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 short and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first phrase. The second sentence is compact and informative, though slightly jargony with 'Native X fields' and lacks punctuation after 'ID', which prevents a perfect 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?

For a simple read-only getter with a robust output schema, full parameter descriptions, and strong annotations, the description is largely complete. It adds response semantics like pagination preservation and micro-unit handling, which are valuable for correct interpretation. Minor ambiguity around what 'Native X fields' specifically refers to keeps it from being fully complete.

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 every parameter is already documented with meaningful descriptions. The tool description does not add parameter-level detail, but it does not need to; the baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the load.

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: 'Get a single card by ID.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling list endpoints such as x_ads_list_cards, and leaves no ambiguity about what operation is performed.

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 usage context is implied through 'Get a single card by ID' — an agent can infer this is for fetching one specific card when an ID is known, rather than listing cards. However, no explicit alternative or when-not-to-use guidance is provided, such as pointing to x_ads_list_cards for enumeration.

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