creative_get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing further: it says nothing about which ID form is authoritative, error behavior for stale IDs, or freshness guarantees. With the bar lowered by annotations, this is a thin addition.

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?

One short sentence with the verb and resource front-loaded; there is no filler. It is efficient, though the brevity leaves out information the tool would benefit from carrying.

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?

An output schema exists and schema coverage is complete, so return values and parameters need not be explained. However, the description does not resolve the two-ID ambiguity or give any usage context, which matters for a point-read tool in a family with a parallel query tool.

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 coverage is 100%, so all four parameters are documented in the schema itself, justifying the baseline 3. The description says only 'by ID' and does not clarify the relationship between the two ID parameters, so it adds no meaning beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Read one creative by ID.' That distinguishes it from mutation tools like creative_update_preview and from bulk ones like creatives_query. It stops short of explicitly naming creatives_query as the list alternative, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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?

'for current-state verification' implies it should be used to fetch the live state, presumably before updates or after changes. It never states when to prefer creatives_query instead or what the 'verification' workflow entails. Usage is implied rather than spelled out.

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