Get Ad

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real beyond-schema insight: photo links are text only and the media must be fetched via another tool. It does not disclose rate limits or auth requirements, but nothing is contradicted.

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 returned payload is front-loaded in the first sentence and the important caveat about photos comes last. The comma-separated enumeration of fields is slightly list-heavy, but every clause carries information and there is no filler.

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 present, the description does not need to restate return values, and the safety profile is handled by annotations. The remaining need for an agent is knowing what the tool yields and how to actually view photos, both of which are addressed.

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% and the single 'ad' parameter already documents both accepted forms (numeric id or 999.md link). The description adds no further parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 for a well-documented single-parameter schema applies.

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?

States a specific verb (get) plus resource (ad) and enumerates the payload it returns: description, characteristics, amenities, exact location with coordinates, seller contacts, media links and dates. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling 'photos' tool, so an agent can separate the two without opening a schema.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent to the alternative for image viewing ('to actually look at the photos use the photos tool'), which is the most likely confusion point. It does not give broader when-to-use guidance relative to 'search' or 'seller_ads', so it falls short of full when/when-not coverage.

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