x ads get line item

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds valuable context about the response: native X fields and pagination are preserved, and monetary fields ending in _micro are millionths of the account currency. This goes beyond annotations and helps the agent interpret results correctly.

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 sentence that leads with the primary action and then adds relevant details. It is efficient and front-loaded, though the second clause about monetary fields adds length without sacrificing clarity. No filler or redundancy.

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 output schema is present and parameter coverage is 100%, the description does not need to explain return values or parameters. It supplements with the important detail about _micro monetary units and preserved pagination. The description is complete enough for a simple get-by-ID tool, though it does not mention error behavior or the with_deleted flag, which are minor gaps.

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 schema fully documents account_id, line_item_id, and with_deleted. The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning, so it provides no value beyond the schema, matching the baseline of 3.

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 'Get a single line item by ID', which specifies the verb and resource. It implicitly differentiates from the sibling x_ads_list_line_items by focusing on a single item, but it does not explicitly name alternatives, so it stops short of a 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?

The description implies usage when you need one specific line item by ID, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over the list tool or other alternatives. The 'by ID' phrasing gives context, but no exclusions or alternatives are named, so it meets only the 'implied usage' level.

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