pinterest_run_targeting_report

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure on its own. It adds 'live' and the sync-window concept, but does not disclose read-only nature, permissions, report generation side effects, return shape, pagination, or rate limits. For a report operation with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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, each earning its place: the first states the core function, the second handles the alternative routing. It is front-loaded with the actionable verb and resource, with no filler or repetition of schema fields.

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?

This is a 15-parameter report tool with no annotations and no output schema. The description captures the high-level purpose and one routing rule, but does not explain the required parameters, what kind of result is returned, sync-window semantics, or how to choose between this and the many sibling report tools. It is far from complete enough for reliable invocation.

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 7%, so the description must compensate for the 15 parameters. It does provide some meaning for targetingTypes and level by mentioning age/gender/location dimensions and ad-account/campaign/ad-group/ad levels, but it leaves startDate, eendDate, entityIds, granularity, attribution windows, timezone, and other required/optional 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?

The description states a specific verb ('Run'), resource ('targeting analytics for an ad account, campaigns, ad groups, or ads'), and the breakdown dimensions (age, gender, location, etc.). It also differentiates itself from pinterest_run_report by calling out the 'live' nature and sync-window boundary.

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 explicitly says when NOT to use this tool: for data older than the sync window, use pinterest_run_report with targetingTypes and executionMode=async. This gives an agent a clear routing rule and an alternative in the sibling set.

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