pinterest_run_catalog_report

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It says only that the tool 'runs' reporting, without mentioning whether it returns data synchronously, creates an export, requires specific permissions, or how results are delivered. Lacking any side-effect or output behavior, this is a weak disclosure for a reporting tool.

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 concise sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core action and breakdown dimension, then lists use cases. Minor jargon like 'Performance+ catalog' and 'Shopping-like reports' could be clarified, but overall the structure is efficient.

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 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is substantially incomplete. It omits date format, account identification, column selection, limit behavior, filtering by IDs, and return format. An agent cannot reliably construct a correct call without resorting to external knowledge or the schema's limited type/enum hints.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It only hints at breakdown and product group/product item concepts, but does not explain startDate, endDate, adAccountId, columns, limit, productGroupIds, or productItemIds. This leaves most of the eight parameters 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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Run Pinterest catalog reporting' with breakdown by PRODUCT_GROUP or PRODUCT_ITEM. It also lists concrete use cases like catalog product groups and product item attributes, which helps distinguish it from generic report tools. However, it does not explicitly contrast with similar siblings such as pinterest_run_conversion_product_report, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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 an explicit 'Use for...' list of scenarios, which implies intended usage. It stops short of telling the agent when NOT to use this tool or which sibling to choose instead, such as pinterest_run_report or pinterest_run_conversion_product_report. Some guidance exists, but exclusions and alternatives are absent.

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