pinterest_health_check

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well: it explicitly declares the operation is 'Read-only' and states it does not expose OAuth tokens, which addresses a key trust concern. It also lists the specific verifications performed. It does not describe error behavior or partial-failure semantics, but the security and side-effect transparency is strong.

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?

One compact sentence that front-loads the most important trait ('Read-only'), then efficiently lists what is verified and the security guarantee. Every phrase earns its place; there is no redundancy or fluff.

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?

For a simple health-check tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, scope, side-effect profile, and a security guarantee. It could add what the response looks like or what happens when checks fail, but the essential information an agent needs to decide to invoke it is present.

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 100% for the only parameter, adAccountId, and the schema already explains that it is optional and defaults to PINTEREST_AD_ACCOUNT_ID when configured. The description adds only a passing reference to 'configured credentials' and 'default account readability,' so it adds little beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific action ('verifies') and a clear resource ('Pinterest Ads health check'), and enumerates what is checked: credentials, account access, delivery metrics access, and default account readability. It is clearly distinct from report-running or data-fetching siblings, though it does not name a specific alternative.

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?

Usage context is implied: it is a health check for verifying configuration and access before working with Pinterest Ads. However, the description does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus siblings like pinterest_validate_report, pinterest_list_ad_accounts, or pinterest_get_conversion_setup, and gives no exclusion criteria.

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