Get Ad Details

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds no behavioral context—it doesn't mention side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or what happens when the ad doesn't exist. Given the presence of annotations, a 2 is appropriate because the description contributes almost nothing beyond the basic purpose.

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 and avoids verbosity, but it is under-specified. The main sentence is clear, and the args list is minimal. However, it lacks any additional structure to guide usage, such as examples or expectations. It's concise but not sufficiently informative.

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, the description is minimal. It doesn't explain what 'detailed information' includes, so an agent doesn't know what fields to expect. With many sibling tools (meta_get_ad_rule, meta_get_ad_creative, etc.), the description doesn't help disambiguate. There is no output schema, so the description should clarify the return content but doesn't.

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 only 50% because ad_id lacks a description in the schema. The description adds 'Ad ID' for ad_id, which is redundant with the parameter name and provides no semantic depth (e.g., format, example, source). For response_format, the schema already has a full description, and the tool description adds nothing extra. With low schema coverage, the description should compensate more but doesn't.

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 tool's purpose: 'Gets detailed information about a specific ad.' This is a specific verb and resource. However, it doesn't differentiate itself from sibling tools like meta_get_ad_insights or meta_get_ad_preview, which also fetch ad-related data. The term 'detailed information' is vague and could overlap with other tools.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as meta_list_ads, meta_get_ad_insights, or meta_get_ad_preview. No context about prerequisites, typical use cases, or how it differs from other ad-related fetch tools is provided.

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