Analyze Pinterest analytics CSV

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description adds a genuinely useful behavioral trait: column names are auto-detected, telling the agent it need not normalize headers before calling. It does not disclose failure modes for malformed CSVs or the 2M-character ceiling, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the verb and resource, then a compact run-down of returned metrics. The long enumeration is justified because there is no output schema, though the single-sentence list form is dense enough to be slightly hard 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?

Because no output schema exists, describing the return metrics is the right call and it does so thoroughly. However, the undocumented 'top' parameter, the absence of input-format expectations and error behavior, and no stated relationship to the sibling tools leave clear gaps for a moderately complex analytical tool.

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 carry the load, and it largely fails. The 'top' parameter is never mentioned (the phrase 'top pins' describes output, not the parameter that controls the count, its 1-25 range, or its default), and no size or format constraints on csv_text are given beyond the loose phrase 'pasted text'.

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+resource combo ('Read a Pinterest Analytics CSV export ... and return totals, save rate, outbound CTR...') and enumerates the analytical outputs. This is unmistakably distinct from the four sibling tools, all of which generate content (write_pin_copy, suggest_boards, plan_schedule, generate_pin_ideas) rather than analyze data.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives or when this tool would be the wrong choice. The input format hint ('pasted text') implies you should have a CSV export in hand, but that is inference rather than guidance.

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