pinterest_get_audiences

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the safety burden, and it does state that the operation is read-only and non-mutating. However, it does not mention required authentication/permissions, pagination, or endpoint behavior for the different mode values. It provides a baseline behavioral profile but not rich operational transparency.

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?

One tight sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, then a short non-mutation qualifier. No filler; it is an appropriate length for the information it conveys.

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?

Despite 12 parameters, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description omits how mode selects the fixed endpoints, which parameters are required/valid per mode, and what the response contains. An agent cannot reliably construct a valid call from this text alone; it would need to reverse-engineer the 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?

Only 2 of 12 schema properties carry descriptions (17% coverage), and the description adds no direct parameter guidance. The audience/customer-list/sharing terms hint at mode enum values, but the agent gets no help choosing values for mode, query, bookmark, pageSize, adAccountId, businessId, or ownershipType. Low schema coverage demands compensation that the description does not provide.

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?

Begins with 'Read', names the exact resources (audience, customer-list, sharing, Business-received audience inventory), and explicitly frames it as inventory retrieval. This distinguishes it from write-oriented audience tools and from sibling pinterest_get_audience_insights (insights vs inventory).

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?

States a clear context: reading audience-related inventory. The phrase 'without uploading or changing audience membership' sets a when-not boundary and rules out mutation use cases, but it does not explicitly name an alternative tool for those cases. Enough to guide selection among sibling get tools, though not as explicit as a named alternative.

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