get_creative_fatigue_tool

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It does state the output fields (fatigue_status, fatigue_level, recommendations) and notes optional filtering by ad_ids. However, it does not mention pagination behavior, data scope, auth requirements, or other operational traits, leaving a noticeable gap.

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?

Two concise sentences front-load the core action, add a one-line definition, list the return fields, and note the optional filter. No filler or redundant restatement.

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?

The description plus output schema covers the main purpose and return values, but for a tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no schema descriptions, it leaves out pagination semantics and any guidance on when not to use it. Adequate but not complete.

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%, so the description must compensate. It only clarifies ad_ids as an optional filter; advertiser_id, page, and page_size are left unexplained beyond their names. That is insufficient compensation for 4 undocumented parameters.

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 opens with a specific verb plus resource: 'Get creative fatigue scores per ad.' It then defines what fatigue means ('shown too frequently... needs refreshing'), which differentiates it from sibling getters like get_reports and get_video_performance. No ambiguity about the tool's purpose.

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 description gives clear context: use this when you need to determine whether ads have been shown too frequently to the same audience and need refreshing. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, so it stops short of a 5, but the intended use is clear.

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