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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds real context beyond them: the downstream dependency on boardId and the default-board exception that changes whether the call is needed at all. It is silent on pagination or result completeness, which keeps it below 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?

Two short sentences, zero filler. The core action is front-loaded and the second sentence carries the only non-obvious information (the boardId requirement with its exception).

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?

For a two-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and an output schema, the description covers the action, the prerequisite, and the key downstream use. Only minor gaps remain: whether results are paginated/truncated and how the default board is surfaced in the response.

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 100% – both organizationId and platformConnectionId are documented in the schema, including the multi-org rule and the id source. The description adds no extra meaning about either parameter, so the baseline 3 applies.

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+platform: 'List the boards of a connected Pinterest account.' The Pinterest qualifier cleanly separates it from the many other list_* siblings (list_discord_channels, list_platform_connections, list_media), so an agent can pick it without opening schemas.

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?

Gives a concrete reason to call it: a Pinterest post needs metadata.pinterest.boardId set to one of these ids. It also names the exception (account has a default board), which prevents an unnecessary call. It does not name an alternative tool or say what to do if the list is empty, so it stops short of full when/when-not routing.

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