tokportal_get_video_ad_code_request

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

The description goes beyond annotations by explaining the `code` field behavior: it is null until the manager submits (status `in_review`) or delivers (status `finalized`). This adds meaningful context about return values and asynchronous status, which is not covered by the readOnlyHint or idempotentHint 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and contains only relevant details about the `code` field and statuses. No wasted words.

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?

For a simple read-only getter with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior: what it returns, the null condition, and statuses. It is complete for its complexity level.

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 input schema already describes the sole parameter `id` as 'Video ID.' with 100% coverage. The description does not add further semantic detail, but it also doesn't need to since the parameter is self-explanatory and the schema covers it.

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 / poll the ad code for a video.' It specifies the resource (video ad code request) and the action (get/poll). It distinguishes from sibling tokportal_create_video_ad_code_request by focusing on retrieval, and clarifies it returns the latest request.

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 implies when to use this tool (to fetch and poll ad code status) but does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention any prerequisites. It provides clear context but lacks explicit 'when not to use' guidance.

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