tiktok get creative fatigue recipes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value beyond annotations by stating the tool 'Does not create, edit, or upload creatives' and by framing the output as 'read-only refresh recipes' – this clarifies the operational contract. It does not disclose details like rate limits or whether the analysis is deterministic, but the annotations cover the safety profile well.

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 sentences with zero waste. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the read-only clarification is placed immediately after. Every sentence earns its place.

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 tool has a rich input schema (100% coverage), a true output schema, and annotations covering read-only/idempotent behavior. The description is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly. A minor gap: it does not explain what a 'refresh recipe' contains or how the fatigue patterns are computed, but the output schema likely covers return values.

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 the schema already documents all six parameters. The description adds the conceptual context that minImpressions and declineThresholdPct are 'candidate signal' thresholds, but it does not add syntax or format details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific verb ('Find'), a specific resource ('creative fatigue patterns from ad-level daily reporting'), and explicitly distinguishes itself from write operations ('Does not create, edit, or upload creatives'). It clearly differentiates from sibling read tools by naming the fatigue-analysis 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 implies when to use it: when the agent needs to identify likely creative fatigue patterns from ad-level daily reporting. It does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools or state when not to use it, but the read-only framing and the 'read-only refresh recipes' phrasing provide clear context. A small gap: no explicit exclusion such as 'use tiktok_get_creatives for raw creative metadata'.

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