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 nothing beyond the marketing phrase 'in one payload' – it does not explain what 'fatigue' measures, how it is computed, or what the payload contains, which is important for a 17-parameter analytical tool.

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, but it is under-specified for a 17-parameter tool – brevity here comes at the cost of usefulness rather than being earned by efficiency.

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 17 undocumented, optional parameters and zero schema coverage, the description leaves the agent unable to construct a meaningful call. The existence of an output schema relieves it of explaining return values, but not of explaining inputs and scope.

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?

17 parameters with 0% schema description coverage and no enums, and the description says nothing about any of them. An agent has no idea what url, days, range_preset, activity_only, or any of the other 13 arguments mean or how they interact.

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?

States a specific metric (fatigue) and scope (across Google Ads, Meta ads, and Shopify), which distinguishes it from the sibling single-platform tools google_ads_get_fatigue and meta_ads_get_fatigue. It does not name those siblings explicitly, but the cross-platform framing is clear enough for an agent to route.

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 and no explicit contrast with the two sibling fatigue tools, even though they exist and compete directly. The phrase 'in one payload' implies a consolidation use case but leaves the choice to inference.

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