get_ad_details

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral context. It mentions the access token is optional and will use a cached token if not provided, which is useful. However, it lacks details on permissions needed, rate limits, error handling, or what 'detailed information' entails, leaving significant gaps for a tool that fetches data.

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 front-loaded with a clear purpose statement, followed by concise parameter explanations in a structured 'Args:' section. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficiently sized and well-organized.

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 tool has an output schema (which should cover return values) and no annotations, the description is moderately complete. It explains the purpose and parameters but lacks usage guidelines and sufficient behavioral context (e.g., auth requirements beyond token caching). For a data-fetching tool with 2 parameters, it's adequate but has clear gaps in guiding the agent.

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 by explaining 'ad_id' as a 'Meta Ads ad ID' and 'access_token' as optional with caching behavior, which clarifies beyond the schema's basic types. However, it doesn't cover format specifics (e.g., ad_id structure) or other potential constraints, leaving some ambiguity.

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 ('detailed information about a specific ad'), making the purpose evident. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_ads' (which lists multiple ads) by specifying retrieval of details for a single ad, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_ads' or 'search_ads_archive'. The description only states what it does, not when it's appropriate or what distinguishes it from similar tools in the sibling list.

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