pinterest_get_platform_resources

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It discloses that the tool is read-only via 'Read', which is useful safety context. However, it does not describe pagination behavior, authentication needs, response shape, or mode-specific side effects, leaving significant behavioral details to the schema or external knowledge.

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 front-loaded sentence with a colon-separated list of resource categories. There is no filler, and every listed item corresponds to meaningful mode behavior. It is concise while covering the tool's breadth.

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's complexity—7 parameters and 10 modes—the description plus schema provides enough to select a mode and invoke basic calls. The schema documents date for METRICS_READY_STATE, entityId for detail modes, and query as additional parameters. However, there is no output schema and no description-level guidance on response formats, pagination, or the exact semantics of WESITES, reportType, and pageSize, so it is only minimally complete.

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 43%, and the required mode parameter has no description in the schema. The tool description adds plain-language meaning to several mode values, such as 'supported ad-account countries', 'delivery metric definitions', and 'authenticated user account'. However, it does not explain WESITES, MEDIA_ITEM, bookmark, pageSize, reportType, or how query interacts with each mode, so it only partially compensates for the coverage gap.

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 tool reads Pinterest platform metadata and readiness resources, and it enumerates the major categories that map to the mode enum values. It is specific about the resource types, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like pinterest_get_delivery_metrics, which could overlap with the DELIVERY_METRICS mode.

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 when to use the tool: when you need platform metadata or readiness resources rather than reports, audiences, or analytics. However, it provides no explicit alternatives or conditions, and it does not clarify when to choose this over sibling tools with similar names like pinterest_get_delivery_metrics or pinterest_health_check.

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