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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it delivers real value: exact metric definitions and the fatigue algorithm basis (frequency, CPA decay, Hook Rate decline). It omits explicit read-only status, pagination, and failure behavior, but for a 'get_' tool with this much output detail, the transparency is strong.

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?

Three dense sentences with zero filler: core purpose is front-loaded, the second sentence enumerates return metrics with formulas, and the third explains fatigue logic. Every sentence earns its place and the structure is easy to scan.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description correctly shoulders the burden of defining return semantics — metric formulas, classification values, and the fatigue basis are all present. It lacks response shape and ranking-order details, but for a read-only analysis tool the coverage is solid.

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 100%, so all six parameters (ad_account_id, limit, sort_by, date_range_days, include_paused, include_asset_breakdown) are already documented by the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 names a specific resource ('creative performance analysis') and a concrete verb ('Returns'), then defines a distinctive metric set with formulas (Hook Rate = 3s plays/impressions, Hold Rate = 15s/3s) and fatigue classification values. The unique output vocabulary (healthy/watch/fatigued, ad relevance diagnostics) differentiates this from any sibling without opening another schema.

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 use case is implied by the unique metric names — an agent can infer this tool covers creative-level fatigue analysis. However, it never explicitly states when to use it over siblings like adsap_get_insights, adsap_get_insights_breakdown, or adsap_get_account_health, and no alternative or exclusion conditions are mentioned.

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