x ads get media library item

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

Annotations already establish the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description does not need to repeat that. It adds useful behavioral context about preserved native fields/pagination and clarifies that monetary fields ending in _micro are expressed in millionths of the account currency, which is valuable beyond the 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?

The core purpose is front-loaded, and the description is short with no filler. The only minor flaw is a missing punctuation break between 'media key' and 'Native X fields', but the overall structure is efficient and easy to scan.

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?

With an output schema, annotations, and fully documented parameters, the description is largely complete. It adds the important micro-units caveat and preserves-field note, which are not derivable from the schema alone. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to invoke this tool correctly.

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. The description's reference to account currency subtly relates to account_id, but it does not meaningfully expand on either parameter beyond what the schema already states.

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 begins with a specific verb and resource: 'Get a single media library object by media key.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from its siblings, especially x_ads_list_media_library, by emphasizing singular retrieval and the identifying media key.

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 provides no explicit guidance about when to choose this tool over alternatives. It does not mention that x_ads_list_media_library should be used for multiple items, nor does it describe any prerequisites or context for when retrieval by media key is appropriate.

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