Get Ad Creative Details

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, which clearly indicate a safe read operation. The description adds no additional behavioral context beyond 'gets detailed information', such as response structure, authentication needs, or rate limits. It does not contradict annotations but adds minimal value.

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 with two sentences plus an args list. However, the args list redundantly restates schema information (creative_id: string). Removing redundancy would improve conciseness. It is front-loaded but wastes space on available details.

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 read tool with robust annotations, the description covers the basic purpose and mentions a creative_id parameter. However, it omits details about the return format (partially handled by response_format param) and what 'detailed information' includes. Agent can infer it returns full creative object, but additional context would ensure correct interpretation.

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 covers 2 parameters, but only response_format has a description in the schema (50% coverage). The tool description merely lists creative_id as a string without clarifying its expected format or source. This adds little meaning beyond the schema. The description should compensate for schema gaps 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 'Gets' and the resource 'ad creative', specifying it retrieves detailed information for a specific creative. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like meta_list_ad_creatives, though not explicitly. The clarity is high but could be more precise about being for a single creative.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as meta_list_ad_creatives or other get tools. The description lacks context about prerequisites, scenarios, or when not to use it. This forces the agent to infer usage without explicit direction.

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