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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: public-only visibility, ordering by most recently pinned-to, pin/follower counts, and a credit cost. It does not contradict any annotation.

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 core resource and then useful behavioral details. Every sentence earns its place, including the ordering, counts, and credit cost.

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 simple read-only list tool with annotations and no output schema, the description covers visibility, ordering, returned counts, and cost. Pagination is left to the cursor schema, and cache_max_age is undocumented, leaving minor gaps.

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 67%; handle and cursor are documented in the schema, but cache_max_age has no description. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description clearly identifies the resource and scope: public boards owned by a user/profile. It adds useful specifics like ordering and included counts. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this from sibling tools such as pinterest_board or pinterest_search, leaving the agent to infer the distinction.

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?

The phrase 'Public boards on a profile' implies the usage context, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus pinterest_board, pinterest_pin, or pinterest_search. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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