meta_get_creative_assets

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses that the output is normalized and lists the returned fields, and 'Return' implies a read operation. However, it does not mention pagination/cursor behavior, permission requirements, or what happens if no identifier parameter is supplied.

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 dense sentence with the action and resource front-loaded, followed by a colon-delimited list of output fields. Every phrase adds information and there is no filler or repetition.

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?

The description plus schema covers the main input and output fields, but with no output schema and zero required parameters, the agent must infer that at least one identifier (adIds, creativeIds, or adAccountId) is necessary. Response envelope and pagination details are also left underspecified.

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 high at 80%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds little parameter semantics beyond the schema; 'for ads or creative IDs' merely restates the adIds/creativeIds properties, and it does not enrich the meaning of limit, cursor, or adAccountId.

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: 'Return normalized creative asset metadata,' and then enumerates the returned fields, making the tool's function clear. It does not reach 5 because it never contrasts this tool with the closely named sibling meta_get_creatives, so the agent must infer the distinction from the word 'assets'.

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 gives clear context: use this tool when you need normalized asset metadata for ad IDs or creative IDs. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is specific enough for an agent to route a matching request.

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