meta_ads_ads_get

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

With no annotations, the description carries full disclosure burden. It declares the tool is read-only, explains that ad_review_feedback is only populated for WITH_ISSUES ads, lists returned fields, and provides behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 concise with two sentences. The first sentence covers purpose and key fields, the second gives usage context. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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?

Given no annotations or output schema, the description provides sufficient context: purpose, key fields, usage scenario, and read-only nature. Minor gaps exist (e.g., error handling, rate limits) but overall it's adequate.

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% and both parameters are well described in the schema. The description adds no extra semantics for parameters beyond what is already in the input schema, meeting the baseline score.

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 it fetches the full detail record for a single ad, specifying key fields like creative_id and ad_review_feedback. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that list multiple ads or focus on different scopes.

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 explicitly advises calling this tool when an ad shows as WITH_ISSUES in ads.list, explaining that ad_review_feedback provides policy rejection details. It gives clear context for use, though it does not explicitly state when not to use it.

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