direct_get_ad

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It labels the operation as 'READ', implying a non-mutating action, which is a key behavioral trait. However, it doesn't disclose other behaviors like error handling, response format, or access requirements, leaving gaps.

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 one concise sentence that front-loads the operation type ('READ') and includes the key fields. Every word contributes, with no fluff.

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 getter with one parameter and no annotations, the description covers the essential operation, return fields, and ID type. However, it omits potential edge cases or error behavior, but given the tool's simplicity, it's reasonably complete.

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 schema provides minimal detail (ad_id anyOf number/string). The description adds a specific clarification that 'ad_id may be int64 string', which is a useful nuance beyond the schema. However, this is the only parameter-related information, and the description doesn't elaborate on how to format the parameter or any constraints.

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 explicitly states it reads full ad detail and lists specific fields (titles, text, href, image, state), making the purpose clear. The verb 'READ' and resource 'ad' distinguish it from sibling tools like direct_list_ads or direct_get_campaign.

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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The 'READ' prefix implies it's for retrieving a single ad's details, but it doesn't mention when to choose it over direct_list_ads or direct_get_campaign, so usage context is only implied.

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