pinterest_get_pin_analytics

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that this is a read operation and that metric names are passed through to the Pinterest endpoint selected by mode, but it does not mention required authentication scopes, rate limits, endpoint-to-mode mapping, behavior on unsupported metric names, pagination, or response shape. For an analytics tool with this complexity, that is a significant transparency gap.

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 dense sentences with no filler, and the core read/analytics purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence. The second sentence earns its place by giving a key usage instruction about metric names.

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 11 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and very low schema coverage, so a complete description would need to explain endpoint selection, required account/date parameters, granularity defaults, and metric-name behavior. The current two sentences provide an overview but leave too much for the agent to infer when actually invoking the tool.

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 18%, so the description needed to compensate for the many undocumented parameters. It adds useful meaning only to 'metrics' ('raw metric names supported by the selected endpoint') and indirectly to 'mode', but it leaves pinId vs pinIds, adAccountId, campaignId, granularity, sortBy, and query semantics unexplained.

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 concrete resource types: paid Pin analytics, organic multi/single-Pin analytics, user-account analytics, top Pins, and top video Pins. This makes the tool's scope immediately clear and distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on delivery metrics, audiences, billing, or catalog operations.

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 through the mode-specific analytics categories and instructs the caller to pass raw metric names for the selected endpoint, but it never states when to prefer this tool over sibling analytics/reporting tools. There are no explicit alternatives or exclusions, so the usage guidance is only implied rather than actionable.

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