Get top performing video pins

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds the required OAuth scopes (user_accounts:read and pins:read), which is useful behavioral context for a read tool. It does not describe pagination, result ordering behavior beyond metric sorting, or rate limits.

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 tight sentences with no waste; the operation and scope are front-loaded. Efficient, though the scope sentence is somewhat boilerplate.

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?

With 11 parameters, no output schema, and only 55% schema coverage, the description is thin. It covers the core operation and auth scope but leaves many parameters (sort_by, metric_types, filtering enums, ad_account_id) for the agent to infer solely from schema.

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 55%, with the required date params and metric_types documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter detail — no mention of date-window constraints, sort_by metric values, or defaults. Baseline 3 given partial schema coverage and the description carrying little of the 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+resource: 'Rank the account's video pins by a video metric over a date window' — clearly identifies ranking operation over video pins. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling pinterest_get_top_pins, which is a near-identical tool for non-video pins, but the 'video' qualifier does imply the distinction.

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?

Implied usage: 'Rank the account's video pins by a video metric over a date window' tells you what it does but not when to choose it over pinterest_get_top_pins or pinterest_get_pin_analytics. No exclusions or alternatives named despite several analytics siblings.

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