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. It mentions that 'access_token' is optional and will use a cached token if not provided, which adds useful behavioral context about authentication. However, it doesn't disclose other traits like rate limits, error handling, or response format, leaving gaps for a mutation-free read operation.

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 guideline and parameter explanations in a structured 'Args:' section. 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 that there is an output schema (which handles return values), no annotations, and low schema coverage, the description does a good job by covering purpose, usage, and parameter semantics. However, it could be more complete by addressing potential errors or linking more explicitly to sibling tools, but it's largely adequate for a read operation.

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 adds meaning for both parameters: 'ad_id' is specified as 'Meta Ads ad ID', and 'access_token' is explained as 'Meta API access token (optional - will use cached token if not provided)'. This clarifies semantics beyond the schema's basic types, though it could provide more detail on formats or constraints.

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 it understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like 'get_ad_details' or 'get_ad_image', which reduces clarity slightly.

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 helpful 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, which prevents a perfect score.

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