get_creative_details

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'get detailed information,' implying a read operation, but does not explicitly state it is read-only, mention authorization requirements beyond an optional token, or describe side effects. The minimal description is insufficient for a safe agent decision.

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: one sentence for purpose, then a clean parameter list. It is front-loaded with the main action and wastes no words. Every sentence serves a purpose.

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 the presence of an output schema, return values need not be described. However, the description lacks behavioral context (e.g., error conditions, rate limits, permissions). With no annotations, this is a significant gap for a simple tool. The description feels incomplete and fails to provide a complete picture.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists parameters with brief labels ('creative_id: Meta Ads creative ID (required)', 'access_token: Meta API access token (optional)'), adding basic meaning beyond the schema types. However, it lacks details on formats, constraints, or examples, so it provides marginal added value.

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 states 'Get detailed information about a specific ad creative by its ID,' which clearly identifies the action (get), resource (ad creative), and scope (specific, by ID). This distinguishes it from siblings like 'get_ad_creatives' that list creatives or 'get_ad_details' for ads.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies usage when a creative ID is known, but fails to mention when not to use it or suggest siblings like 'create_ad_creative' or 'update_ad_creative.' No exclusion criteria or context are given.

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