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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine methodological context — the comparison is against a typical same weekday, and the scope spans ads plus Shopify plus Search Console — but it says nothing about detection thresholds, expected result volume, or how the 19 filter parameters change scope.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the metric scope and the same-weekday baseline are the most useful facts and appear first. It is undersized rather than oversized, but there is no waste to cut.

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, so return values needn't be explained, but a tool with 19 undocumented, all-optional parameters needs the description to at least sketch how to scope a query (date range? account? limit?). The description instead describes only what the tool detects, leaving an agent unable to call it with intent.

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% across 19 optional parameters, and the description gives no hint what days, limit, date_from/date_to, range_preset, action, status, activity_only, ad_account, site_url, or property_name do. It loosely implies which data sources are queried, but that is not enough to compensate for a complete absence of parameter documentation.

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 the specific analysis produced (daily spikes/drops) and the exact metric families covered (Google/Meta spend, clicks, conversions, revenue, Shopify revenue/orders, Search Console clicks) against a same-weekday baseline. That is concrete and far better than a restatement of the name, though it never distinguishes this from close siblings like meta_insights_get_fatigue or meta_insights_get_overview.

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?

There is no statement of when to reach for this versus meta_insights_get_fatigue, meta_insights_get_overview, or meta_insights_compare_platforms, and no exclusions or prerequisites. The agent must infer the use case from the metric list alone.

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