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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior context by enumerating the returned fields (id, name, description, privacy) and tying the result to the workspace's Pinterest connection — useful since there is no output schema. It stops short of noting failure modes such as a missing/disconnected Pinterest account.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then purpose, then return shape. Every sentence carries distinct information; nothing repeats the name or annotations.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers what it lists, why an agent would call it, where the workspace ID comes from (via schema), and what is returned. An agent can call it correctly without further inference.

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?

With a single parameter at 100% schema coverage, the schema already documents `workspace_id` and even points to list_workspaces. The description adds no new syntax or constraints about that parameter, so the baseline of 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 and resource ('Lists the boards on the Pinterest account connected to a workspace'), with the scope narrowed to the workspace's connection. It is clearly distinguishable from sibling listing tools like list_platform_connections or list_workspaces.

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 says when to use it: to obtain the `boardId`/`boardName` needed for update_post / batch_update_posts platform_settings, and notes that a board is mandatory for Pinterest publishing. It names the downstream tools that consume the result, which is the key routing decision an agent faces.

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