pinterest_get_organic_inventory

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden. It clearly states it is a read operation ('Read organic Pinterest content') and clarifies the semantic nature of the data (inventory metadata, not proof of paid delivery). This sufficiently discloses its read-only behavior and the caveat that it is not a delivery proof tool. It does not mention rate limits or auth, but for a read-only tool this is acceptable.

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 sentences, each earning its place. The first sentence front-loads the primary purpose and the second adds a critical caveat. There is no fluff or repetition, making it easy to scan.

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 7 parameters, an enum mode with multiple modes, a nested 'query' object, no output schema, and no annotations. The description only provides a high-level overview and a caveat, but does not explain the mode-parameter relationships, pagination (bookmark/pageSize), or the structure of the returned metadata. For such a complex tool, this is insufficient for an agent to call it correctly without external knowledge.

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% (only 'query' has a description). The description does not explain any parameters beyond listing content types that roughly map to the 'mode' enum, but it fails to clarify which parameters (pinId, boardId, searchTerm, bookmark, pageSize) apply to which modes or their conditional requirements. Given the low schema coverage, the description should compensate, but it does not provide 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 the action (read), the resource (organic Pinterest content), and explicitly lists the covered content types (Pins, boards, Pins on a board, Pin product tags, search results). It also distinguishes itself from siblings like 'get_catalog_inventory' by explicitly saying 'organic inventory' and 'not proof of paid delivery', making the purpose unambiguous.

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 implies usage context ('used alongside ads') and provides an exclusion ('not proof of paid delivery'), but it does not explicitly name alternative tools or provide when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance. The exclusion is helpful but not comprehensive; an agent would still need to infer which of many get_* siblings this replaces.

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