meta_get_creatives

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a read operation and lists content types, but it does not disclose that adIds is optional, how scope changes when adIds is omitted, whether pagination or limit behavior applies, or what permissions are required. The phrase 'for specified ads' is potentially misleading given adIds is not required.

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 main verb and content types appearing early. The second sentence is somewhat redundant with the first ('creative content' vs 'creative details'), but overall there is no wasted text.

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 tool with three parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is incomplete. It does not explain what happens when adIds is omitted, how limit and pagination work, what the exact return structure looks like, or any authentication/scoping constraints. An agent could easily invoke it with incorrect assumptions about scope.

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?

The input schema already documents adAccountId and adIds, and the description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that. The limit parameter has no description in the schema, and the description does not compensate by explaining its behavior. Since schema coverage is only 67%, the description should have added clarification but does not.

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 the verb and resource: 'Get ad creative content' and lists the content types returned (text, images, videos, links, call-to-action). It also clarifies that it returns details for specified ads. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the similarly named sibling meta_get_creative_assets, so it falls 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like meta_get_creative_assets or other ad-related tools. 'For specified ads' implies the tool needs ad IDs, but there is no explicit statement of when to choose it, what prerequisites exist, or which tools to prefer in other scenarios.

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