pinterest_estimate_delivery

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly states the operation is non-mutating and that no campaign or ad group is created or changed, which is the most critical side-effect information. It does not cover auth or rate-limit behavior, but the core behavioral profile is explicit.

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 two sentences with the primary purpose front-loaded and concrete mode examples immediately following. The second sentence adds a meaningful side-effect guarantee and schema note, so each clause contributes without filler.

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?

Given the nested request object, the mode-driven behavior, three parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is too sparse for confident invocation. It lacks the mode-specific request contract, mention of optional `adAccountId`, and any indication of the response shape, leaving significant gaps for an agent.

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 needed to compensate for the opaque `mode`, `request`, and `adAccountId` parameters. It only says the request body follows the selected Pinterest v5 schema and lists high-level computation types; it does not describe how to construct `request`, which modes require what fields, or the role of `adAccountId`.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Run non-mutating Pinterest planning computations' and then enumerates concrete outputs such as audience size, bid floors, and delivery estimates. This maps directly to the mode enum and clearly differentiates the tool from the many get/report siblings.

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 establishes a clear context: planning/estimation computations rather than historical reads or report generation, and it stresses that nothing is mutated. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, leaving the when-to-use comparison mostly implicit.

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