Check a report's status

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

The annotations clearly declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, and the description is consistent with a read-only status check. Still, the description does not clarify polling behavior or response semantics beyond the status list, leaving some behavioral expectations implicit.

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 compact and easy to scan, with a clear status list and actionable next step. The line break after the period and the sparse detail are minor issues, not verbosity.

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?

For a simple two-parameter status check, it covers purpose, status values, annotations, and a follow-up tool. However, it omits parameter meanings, especially ad_account_id, and gives no guidance for non-FINISHED states, so it is not fully 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%, and the description does not define the required token parameter beyond saying "same token" or explain the optional ad_account_id. It adds little parameter semantics beyond linking token to the download_report follow-up.

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 explicitly states "Check a report's status" and enumerates the possible status values: IN_PROGRESS, FINISHED, FAILED, CANCELLED, and EXPIRED. The tool name and title reinforce this purpose clearly.

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?

It provides an important conditional next step: when the status is FINISHED, call pinterest_ads_download_report with the same token. However, it does not explain when to call this tool initially, where the token comes from, or how to handle non-FINISHED statuses such as polling or retry behavior.

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