Export ad entities in bulk

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/non-destructive, and the description reinforces rather than contradicts them ('Changes nothing in the account'). It adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: a single background job, blocking poll-with-progress execution, active-entities-only export scope, and incremental export via updated_since. It omits what happens on timeout or when max_rows is hit.

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?

Front-loaded: what it does and how it runs come first, then parameter notes. The telegraphic fragment style is efficient, though the 'up to 6 ... CAMPAIGN, ..., SCHEDULE' sentence misfires by listing seven items against a stated cap of six, which costs clarity.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the job/polling model is explained. However, for an 8-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage, the description leaves key operational behavior (poll_seconds, timeout_seconds, max_rows truncation, entity_ids scoping) undocumented.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning; it covers entity_types (enumerated values), campaign_filter (with a concrete example shape), and updated_since (timestamp semantics). Five of eight parameters — max_rows, entity_ids, poll_seconds, timeout_seconds, ad_account_id — get no explanation at all, and 'up to 6 of' followed by seven listed values is internally inconsistent.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Export ad entities in bulk') and adds the distinguishing execution model ('one background job', waits with progress, returns rows), which separates it from the many pinterest_ads_list_* siblings. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool, so sibling differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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?

Implies the use case (bulk multi-entity extraction) but never states when to prefer this over pinterest_ads_list_campaigns / list_ads / list_keywords, nor when not to use it. The 'Pinterest exports active entities only' note is a useful usage constraint but is a data caveat, not selection guidance.

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