get_ad_image

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 the tool 'get, download, and visualize' an image and that the access_token is optional with caching, but fails to describe authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what 'visualize' entails (e.g., format, size). This leaves significant gaps for a tool with two parameters and no output schema.

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 well-structured and appropriately sized, with a clear purpose statement, parameter explanations, and return value note. Every sentence adds value, though the 'useful to see the image in the LLM' could be more precise, slightly reducing efficiency.

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 no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description provides basic purpose and parameter semantics but lacks details on behavior (e.g., authentication, visualization format), error cases, or output specifics. It's minimally adequate for a simple tool but has clear gaps in completeness.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining both parameters: 'ad_id' as the 'Meta Ads ad ID' and 'access_token' as optional with caching behavior. This adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't cover format details (e.g., ad_id structure) or token scope, keeping it from a perfect score.

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 with specific verbs ('get, download, and visualize') and resource ('Meta ad image'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'get_ad_details' or 'get_ads'. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'upload_ad_image' or other image-related tools, which prevents a perfect score.

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 implied usage context ('useful to see the image in the LLM') and mentions the optional nature of the access_token parameter. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_ad_details' for metadata or 'upload_ad_image' for uploads, and doesn't specify prerequisites or exclusions.

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