pinterest_get_targeting_options

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Read' signals a non-mutating operation and 'official catalog' signals the data source, but the description does not disclose output shape, pagination, rate limits, or authentication requirements. That is adequate for a simple read-only tool but not thorough.

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 sentences with no wasted words. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the secondary interest-ID resolution is added concisely. The description is easy to parse and does not repeat information already visible in the schema.

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 four parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description covers the core purpose and one important parameter but leaves 'query' and 'adAccountId' effectively unexplained. No parameters are required, so a minimal call is possible, but an agent needing a non-default or account-specific call would have insufficient guidance.

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 itself only documents the generic 'query' object, leaving schema description coverage at 25%. The description adds useful semantics by mapping the targeting categories to the targetingType enum and by indicating that interestId resolves a specific interest. However, it does not explain 'query' or 'adAccountId', so it only partially compensates for the low schema coverage.

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'), identifies a precise resource ('Pinterest's official targeting option catalog'), and enumerates the supported categories: app type, gender, locale, age, location/geo, interest, keyword, or audience. It also adds the secondary capability of resolving a specific interest ID, which makes the tool's function clear and distinct from sibling report-generation tools.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: when an agent needs targeting options for any of the listed categories, or needs to resolve a single interest ID. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling context is mostly report/analysis tools, so the intended use is still reasonably unambiguous.

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