tiktok_get_creative_fatigue_recipes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explicitly states the operation is read-only and 'Does not create, edit, or upload creatives,' which is valuable transparency. It does not discuss permissions or rate limits, but for a non-mutating analysis tool this is largely sufficient.

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 tightly written sentences: the first states purpose and output, the second reinforces read-only safety. No filler or repeated schema information, and the most important detail is front-loaded.

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 six parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, yet the description only explains the high-level purpose and read-only nature. It does not describe the shape of a 'recipe,' the meaning of the threshold parameters, or any analysis-specific behavior. The schema covers some inputs, but the missing output context leaves an agent under-informed about what to expect.

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 50%, and the description itself adds no parameter-level meaning. The schema documents advertiserId, startDate, and endDate, but limit, minImpressions, and declineThresholdPct are only inferable from their names and numeric ranges. The description neither compensates for nor clarifies these gaps, landing at the baseline.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Find likely creative fatigue patterns from ad-level daily reporting' and clarifies the output as 'read-only refresh recipes.' It is clearly distinct from sibling tools like tiktok_get_creatives or tiktok_get_insights, which fetch raw data rather than fatigue analysis.

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 makes the primary use case clear: use this when you need creative fatigue patterns and refresh recommendations. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5, but the context is strong enough for an agent to route correctly.

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