pinterest_get_audience_insights

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose a genuine quirk beyond the schema — Pinterest fixes the observation window and the tool ignores custom date ranges — and signals read-only intent via 'Read.' It does not, however, address response shape, aggregation specifics, or any auth/rate-limit caveats, leaving the behavioral picture only partially drawn.

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 filler. The first sentence front-loads the verb, resource, and scope options; the second delivers the single most important behavioral caveat. Every clause earns its place.

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?

The tool has four parameters, one nested free-form query object, no output schema, and no annotations, so the description must do heavy lifting. It covers the enum semantics and the fixed-window caveat well, but leaves no hint about what the insights response actually contains (e.g., demographics, interests) and does not enumerate the accepted query parameters, which remain 'additionalProperties: {}' in the schema. Adequate but with clear gaps for a tool this complex.

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 25%, so the description must compensate, and it partially does: the prose explains the audienceInsightType enum values ('your total or engaged audience, Pinterest's total audience') and the mode enum ('scope/type endpoint'). However, it says nothing about adAccountId and leaves the opaque 'query' object undescribed despite the date-range caveat being the only hint about its constraints. The compensation is real but incomplete.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Read aggregated Pinterest Audience Insights') and enumerates the three distinct scopes: advertiser total/engaged audience, Pinterest's total audience, and the scope/type endpoint. The closing clause explicitly distinguishes it from a custom date-range report, which helps an agent separate it from reporting siblings like pinterest_run_report. This is neither tautological nor vague.

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 statement 'it is not a custom date-range report' provides an implicit exclusion that hints an agent should not select this tool when date-range flexibility is required. However, no explicit alternatives are named and there is no positive guidance on when to choose audience insights over overlapping siblings such as pinterest_get_keyword_intelligence or pinterest_get_trends. The usage context is implied rather than stated.

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