pinterest_get_creative_assets

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state that the tool returns certain data and notes that period performance is available 'when available,' which is useful. However, it does not disclose behaviors such as required ad account context, date range handling, pagination, whether results are limited by default, or what happens when no assets match.

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 a single compact sentence that front-loads the main action and resource. It packs several return categories into a list without excessive wording. It loses one point because the phrase 'when available' is vague and the long enumeration is slightly unfocused, but overall it is concise.

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?

For a tool with 7 parameters, 2 required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse to support correct invocation. It does not explain date formats, which filters are supported, what 'period performance' means, or how the response is structured. An agent would likely need to inspect sibling tools or make assumptions to call this correctly.

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%, and the description provides almost no parameter meaning. Required fields startDate and endDate are not explained, and optional filters like adGroupIds, campaignIds, adAccountId, and onlyWithPeriodDelivery are not mentioned. The phrase 'period performance when available' could relate to onlyWithPeriodDelivery, but it is too vague to count as meaningful parameter semantics.

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 ('Fetch') and resource ('Pinterest creative assets'), and lists what is returned: ads, pins, media, context, catalog signals, and classifications. This makes the tool's basic purpose obvious, though it does not explicitly differentiate it from siblings like pinterest_get_lead_assets or pinterest_get_organic_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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool instead of alternatives, nor are exclusions or prerequisite context given. The phrase 'when available' hints at a conditional but does not explain what conditions matter. Among many sibling tools, the description does not help an agent decide between them.

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