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

Goes well beyond the annotations: discloses the 422 error on duplicate names, describes the returned placement shape { id, name, avatar_url, metadata }, and explains what the returned id means downstream. This is exactly the behavioral context annotations can't carry.

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?

Four tightly packed sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the placement semantics, return shape, and the uniqueness constraint. No filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by specifying the return shape, the failure mode (422 on duplicate), and the id's downstream purpose. An agent has everything needed to call and consume the result.

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%, so all four parameters (including the privacy enum) are already documented in the schema. The description's uniqueness note duplicates the schema's own 'Must be unique among the account's boards', so it adds no parameter meaning beyond the structured data.

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 ('Create a board on a connected Pinterest account'), and clarifies the resource model by equating boards with placements. This cleanly separates it from pinterest_board_delete and the post_* family.

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?

Explains the practical context: boards are the profile's placements, the new board appears in profiles_placements immediately, and the returned id is what post_publish consumes. It doesn't explicitly name when not to use it, but the workflow linkage gives strong implied routing.

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