pinterest_get_lead_assets

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the operation is read-only via 'Read' and transparently explains that lead-record export is intentionally excluded due to PII concerns. This gives meaningful behavioral context beyond the tool name, though it omits details like authentication needs or rate-limit behavior.

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 concise sentences with no filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the important PII exclusion is stated clearly as a secondary point. Every sentence 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?

Given the tool has 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too thin. It clarifies the broad purpose but leaves the agent without guidance on how to select modes, which parameters are required in which context, or what a successful response looks like.

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 14%, so the description must compensate for the 7 undocumented parameters. It only broadly maps to two categories (lead-form definitions vs. subscription configuration), which helps interpret the mode enum but does not explain adAccountId, leadFormId, subscriptionId, bookmark, pageSize, or the query object. This is insufficient for agents to reliably construct calls.

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 names the exact resources: lead-form definitions and lead subscription configuration. It also explicitly states what is excluded (lead-record export), which clarifies scope and differentiates this tool from potential data-export siblings.

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 description clearly indicates that this tool is for reading lead-form definitions and subscription configuration, and it explicitly warns that lead-record export is not included. However, it does not name an alternative tool for lead-record export or specify conditions for when to use this over other Pinterest tools.

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