get_ad_creatives

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the access token is optional and will use a cached token if not provided, which adds useful context about authentication behavior. However, it doesn't disclose other traits like rate limits, error handling, or what 'creative details' includes (e.g., format, fields). The description doesn't contradict any annotations, but it's incomplete for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the purpose clearly, followed by a usage tip and parameter explanations. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 complexity (2 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is reasonably complete. It covers the tool's purpose, usage tip, and parameter semantics. Since an output schema exists, it doesn't need to explain return values. However, for a tool with no annotations, it could benefit from more behavioral context like error cases or performance hints.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by explaining both parameters: 'ad_id: Meta Ads ad ID' and 'access_token: Meta API access token (optional - will use cached token if not provided).' This clarifies the purpose and optionality of each parameter beyond the schema's basic types. However, it doesn't provide examples or format details (e.g., expected ID format), so it's not fully comprehensive.

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: 'Get creative details for a specific ad.' This is a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('creative details for a specific ad'), making the function unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_ad_details' or 'get_ads', which might also retrieve ad-related information, so it doesn't fully distinguish from siblings.

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 provides clear context for usage: 'Best if combined with get_ad_image to get the full image.' This gives a positive guideline on when to use this tool in conjunction with another. However, it lacks explicit alternatives or exclusions, such as when to use 'get_ad_details' instead, and doesn't mention prerequisites beyond the optional access token.

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