x ads get promoted post

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

Annotations already establish that this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond those hints: it states that native X fields and pagination are preserved, and clarifies that monetary fields ending in '_micro' are expressed in millionths of the account currency. This helps the agent interpret response values 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 compact and front-loads the core purpose before adding behavioral notes. It contains no filler. It loses a point for awkward structure: the transition between 'by ID' and 'Native X fields' is missing a punctuation break, making the sentence slightly harder to parse.

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, the description is largely complete: it names the resource, the lookup key, unit semantics, and response preservation behavior. Required parameters are fully detailed in the schema, and an output schema exists, so return structure does not need to be described. It could be more complete by mentioning that for bulk retrieval the list tool should be used, but that gap is minor.

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 input schema already documents all three parameters, including the source of account_id and the meaning of with_deleted. The tool description does not add parameter-level detail beyond the schema; its extra semantic note concerns response field units rather than parameters. A baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 promoted post by ID'. This clearly separates it from sibling list tools like x_ads_list_promoted_posts, which retrieve multiple posts, and from other getters targeting different resources. The scope is unambiguous.

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 phrase 'by ID' conveys a clear precondition: the caller must already have a specific promoted post ID. This implies the tool is for single-resource lookup rather than listing, which provides useful context for selection among siblings. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use the tool, so it stops short of full guidance.

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