yd_ad_extensions_get

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral transparency. It only states 'Get', implying a read operation, but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as pagination, response format, required permissions, or whether it returns full or partial data. This is inadequate for a tool with no annotations.

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 extremely concise (4 words) and front-loaded, with no wasted words. However, it lacks structure such as bullet points or examples. It is efficient but minimal.

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?

The description is incomplete given the tool's context: no output schema, no annotations, many siblings. It does not explain what ad extensions are, how to obtain IDs, or what the response looks like. For a retrieval tool, this leaves significant gaps.

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 description adds no details about the 'ids' parameter beyond what is in the schema (array of integers). The 'client_login' parameter already has a description in the schema. With schema coverage at 50%, the description should compensate but does not. The agent has to guess what the IDs represent (e.g., extension IDs, but not explicitly stated).

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 'get' and resource 'ad extensions' with 'by IDs', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like add/delete. However, it lacks any additional context about what exactly is retrieved (e.g., full extension objects or summaries).

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 usage guidelines are provided. The description does not mention when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., yd_ad_extensions_add or yd_ad_extensions_delete) or any prerequisites for the IDs. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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