Get account analytics

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the lower bar applies. The description still adds non-structured context: the required OAuth scopes and the 90-day date-window ceiling. It omits rate-limit or pagination behavior, but the auth-scope disclosure is exactly the kind of added value credited at this level.

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 sentences with zero filler, and the most important scoping fact (daily, account-level, 90-day window) is front-loaded ahead of the permission note.

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 no output schema, the description is the only place that could characterize the returned metrics, and it stops at 'daily account-level analytics' without describing the shape of the response or the split_field behavior. Combined with read-only annotations and a fully documented 10-param schema, this is adequate but leaves a real gap for a reporting tool.

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 100% across all 10 parameters, including enum meanings and the 'omit for all available' behavior of metric_types, so the schema carries the semantics. The description adds only the 90-day window constraint, which is already echoed in the start_date/end_date schema text, so baseline 3 applies.

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 (get) and resource (account-level analytics) plus the granularity (daily) and window limit (up to 90 days). The 'account-level' qualifier implicitly separates it from per-pin siblings like pinterest_get_pin_analytics, but no sibling is named 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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is for aggregate account reporting rather than per-pin reporting. It does add a prerequisite signal by naming the required OAuth scopes (user_accounts:read, pins:read), but it never says when to prefer this over pinterest_get_pin_analytics, pinterest_get_multi_pin_analytics, or pinterest_get_top_pins.

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