Get the signed-in Pinterest account

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing the dual behavior (token owner vs. ad-account owner) and the shape of the returned identity fields, though it omits failure behavior for an unknown ad_account_id.

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 short sentences with zero filler; the primary behavior comes first and the parameter-driven variant second. Nothing is repeated from the title or annotations.

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 one-optional-parameter read tool with a full annotation set and an output schema, the description covers purpose, return fields and the parameter's effect. Remaining gaps are minor: ID format, permission requirements, and behavior on an invalid or inaccessible ad_account_id.

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%, so the description must carry the single parameter, and it does: ad_account_id switches the lookup to the owner of that ad account rather than the token's account. It does not specify the expected ID format (numeric vs. prefixed) or whether the account must be accessible to the token, leaving a small gap.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get the Pinterest account behind the token') and even enumerates the returned fields (username, account type, business name). It also clarifies the alternate mode triggered by ad_account_id, which implicitly separates it from siblings like pinterest_ads_get_ad_account and pinterest_ads_list_ad_accounts, though it never names them explicitly.

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 explains the two usage modes (no argument vs. with ad_account_id), which is real when-to-use guidance. However, it never states when an agent should prefer pinterest_ads_get_ad_account or pinterest_ads_list_ad_accounts instead, nor any prerequisites such as required token scopes.

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