meta_ads_ads_get

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

Declares 'Read-only,' which is a key behavioral trait. It also notes that ad_review_feedback is populated only when the ad is WITH_ISSUES. Without annotations, the description carries the transparency burden, and it does so adequately, though it could be more explicit about response structure (mitigated by listing fields).

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?

Three concise sentences front-loading purpose and key fields, then use case. No superfluous words, each sentence adds value.

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 get tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it states purpose, input (ad ID), output fields, read-only nature, and specific condition to call. No gaps given the tool's complexity.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters (account_id and ad_id) with descriptions. The description does not add new parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 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 clearly states the verb 'Fetches' and the resource 'full detail record for a single ad', and lists specific fields returned. It distinguishes from sibling tools like meta_ads_ads_list by specifying when to call it (for WITH_ISSUES ads) and highlighting ad_review_feedback.

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?

Provides explicit guidance: 'Call this when an ad shows up as WITH_ISSUES in ads.list — ad_review_feedback explains the policy rejection.' It also implies not to use for listing or for ads without issues, effectively directing usage.

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