fatigue

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does meaningful work: it labels the output as heuristic and non-causal, names likely confounders, and discloses that default demo mode uses synthetic decisions and never uses Jev. It leaves the return shape and the meaning of 'Jev' unexplained, but the core behavioral traits are unusually well surfaced.

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?

The description is only two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, and every clause earns its place. The cryptic mention of 'Jev' slightly reduces clarity, but structurally this is tight and efficiently organized.

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?

Given there is no output schema, no annotations, and only 25% parameter description coverage, the description leaves too much unspecified: what the alert output looks like, how confidence_threshold interacts with the heuristic, what 'Jev' is, and how live mode differs from demo. It reads more like an abstract summary than a callable tool contract.

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 low (25%), so the description must compensate, but it only partially does. It adds context that inputs should be comparable windows and clarifies that demo mode produces synthetic decisions, yet it does not explain provider, confidence_threshold, or how to structure the window comparison beyond the schema's minimal input note.

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 opening clause clearly identifies the tool as a heuristic alert over supplied windows, and the 'not causal proof' qualifier sharpens the nature of its output. However, it does not explicitly state the exact condition being alerted on (e.g., ad fatigue) and does not distinguish itself from sibling tools.

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 the tool should be used when the user has comparable windows and wants a heuristic signal, and it warns about confounders like audience, placement, spend, and seasonality. It does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of siblings, nor does it provide exclusions or alternative tool routing.

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