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

Annotations already declare read-only/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description adds substantive traits beyond them: the Pin count comes from a cached snapshot and lags (treat as lower bound), pinsModifiedAt is a staleness proxy, and a board with no description omits the field entirely rather than returning null. These are non-obvious data-quality caveats an agent could not infer from structured fields.

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?

Usage intent and the boardId-for-create_post rationale are front-loaded, and every sentence carries content. It runs long, though, and the audit/quiet-board framing drifts somewhat from the core 'list boards for an account' purpose, making it denser than it needs to be.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, yet the description still supplies the interpretive caveats (staleness, absent description field, cached counts) that matter for correctly acting on the output. Nothing an agent needs in order to call and interpret this correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100% and the single accountId param is documented, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by tying accountId's provenance to list_accounts and by warning that board IDs are numeric and must never be substituted with a name or URL — guidance the schema does not state.

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 ("Lists the Pinterest boards on an account") and enumerates the returned fields. It is clearly separable from nearby siblings like list_group_boards, list_board_pins and list_board_sections, which target different resources.

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?

Explicitly names the triggering intent ("when the user wants to see their Pinterest boards") and the downstream consumer ("this is how to get the boardId values that create_post and schedule_post take"). It also gives an explicit disambiguation rule: if the account is unspecified and list_accounts returns multiple, ask the user rather than choosing.

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