pinterest_get_delivery_metrics

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. Saying the tool 'Read's and that it inspects 'metadata' conveys a read-only, non-mutating operation. It doesn't describe output format, pagination, or authorization, but for a simple metadata look-up this is moderate 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?

The description is two focused sentences with no filler. The action and resource come first, and the usage context follows directly, making it easy to scan and process.

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 low-complexity tool with a single optional and fully-described parameter. The description gives enough context for an agent to call it correctly and choose whether to pass reportType. The main gap is the lack of detail about the returned metadata structure, but the high-level 'metadata' statement partially mitigates that.

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?

The schema already fully describes reportType with an enum and an 'Optional report type filter' description, so the baseline is 3. The description's mention of 'sync or async reports' aligns with the enum values and adds mild context, but it doesn't add substantial new meaning beyond the schema.

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 ('Read') and a concrete resource path ('Pinterest resources/delivery_metrics'), and states that its purpose is to inspect official delivery metric metadata for sync or async reports. This makes the tool's function clear and distinguishes it from report-execution siblings, though it doesn't explicitly name an alternative.

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 'Use this to inspect...' provides an explicit use case, and 'for sync or async reports' clarifies the intended context. However, it doesn't discuss when to prefer other delivery-related siblings such as estimate_delivery or run_report, so exclusion guidance is missing.

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