pinterest_list_ad_accounts

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It only restates the action without adding behavioral context such as pagination, output format, permission requirements, or side effects. For a read-only list tool, some detail about return structure would be expected.

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 sentence with no filler. It front-loads the verb and resource, and is appropriately sized for a simple tool with no parameters.

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 zero-parameter, read-only list tool, the description is mostly adequate but does not specify the return shape (e.g., names, IDs, metadata) or any unusual behaviors. Since no output schema exists, a little more detail would make it fully 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the schema provides no meaningful constraints. Per the baseline rule for zero-parameter tools, a score of 4 is appropriate. The description does not need to explain parameters since there are none.

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 verb and resource: 'List Pinterest ad accounts accessible to the configured credentials.' It clearly identifies the tool's function and scope, and distinguishes it from siblings that focus on other entities like audiences or business assets.

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: use this tool when you need to see which ad accounts the current credentials can access. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives, exclusions, or when not to use it. The purpose alone gives basic contextual guidance.

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