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, but the description adds little beyond the phrase 'in one payload' — there is no mention of rate limits, cross-account auth requirements, partial-data behavior when one platform is disconnected, or pagination, all of which matter for a 19-parameter aggregate read.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is structurally good. However, the brevity comes at the cost of substance rather than being earned concision, so it is efficient but under-specified.

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 need not be described, but for a cross-platform aggregator with 19 parameters and zero schema documentation, a single 12-word sentence leaves the agent without the platform-mapping and filtering context needed to invoke it correctly.

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?

All 19 parameters have 0% schema description coverage and the description explains none of them. Critically ambiguous fields like 'action', 'status', 'range_preset', 'activity_only', and the platform-scoping fields ('ad_account', 'ig_user_id', 'page_id', 'site_url', 'property_name') get no interpretation at all, so the agent must guess which subsets apply to which platform.

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 resource (fatigue) and its scope (Google Ads, Meta ads, Shopify), which implicitly separates it from the single-platform siblings google_ads_get_fatigue and meta_ads_get_fatigue. But it is a noun fragment with no verb, so it reads as a category label rather than stating 'retrieves cross-platform fatigue metrics'.

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 when-to-use guidance: it never says to prefer this over the per-platform fatigue tools, nor what happens when a platform is not connected. 'In one payload' hints at an aggregation use case but no condition or exclusion is stated.

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