pinterest_get_account_entities

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly labels the operation as 'Read' (non-destructive) and explicitly discloses pagination behavior by saying it returns one API page and its bookmark. This is meaningful behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 concise and front-loaded: it begins with the action, then lists the covered entities, then states the return behavior. Every sentence adds information, though the word 'configuration' is slightly vague.

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?

This is a 9-parameter tool with no output schema, no annotations, and low schema coverage. The description explains scope and pagination, but does not clarify how to choose between list vs detail fetches, how to continue pagination with the bookmark, or what the query object should contain. An agent would likely need to inspect external docs to invoke it confidently.

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 only 22%, so the description must compensate for poorly documented parameters. It only gives meaning to the entity enum and the pagination concept; it does not explain entityId, query, pageSize, adAccountId, adGroupIds, campaignIds, or entityStatuses. This leaves most parameters under-specified.

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 clearly states a specific verb ('Read') and a concrete resource ('Pinterest ad-account entities and configuration'), and enumerates the entity types covered. It doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools, but it is specific enough for an agent to identify its core purpose.

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 phrase 'Returns one API page and its bookmark for predictable live queries' implies when this tool is appropriate—live, paginated entity reads rather than report or export tools. However, it does not name alternatives or state which sibling tools should be used instead for analytics, audits, or reporting.

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