pinterest_validate_report

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral disclosure. It clearly states what the tool does not do (call performance endpoints) and lists what it returns: sync/async routing, endpoint, level, columns, attribution settings, and warnings. It stops short of disclosing read-only side-effect status, error behavior, or permission requirements, but still offers solid transparency for a validation/preview 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?

One tight sentence front-loads the action and purpose, then lists the key scoped outputs with zero filler. Every clause earns its place and the description remains easy to scan.

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 14 parameters, no schema descriptions, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It mentions some return categories but does not clarify required parameter semantics, date handling, default interactions, or what warnings look like. A complex validation tool like this needs more context to be invoked reliably.

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 14 parameters. The description only names broad groups like level, columns, attribution settings, and sync/async routing. It does not explain critical parameters such as startDate, endDate, entityIds, adAccountId, granularity, viewWindowDays, clickWindowDays, or conversionReportTime, leaving most of the parameter space semantically opaque.

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-resource pair: 'Validate and preview how a Pinterest report will execute.' It also distinguishes itself from execution tools by saying it returns routing and settings 'without calling performance endpoints,' which separates it from pinterest_run_report and similar report 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 phrasing implies this is a pre-flight check before running a real report, especially via 'without calling performance endpoints.' However, it never explicitly names pinterest_run_report or states 'use this when you want to preview, use run_report when you actually want data.' Usage context is clear but not fully explicit.

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