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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context the annotations lack: that results include both shared pins and the caller's private ones, and that pins are linked to wiki pages. It says nothing about ordering, pagination, or result size for a list operation.

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?

It is short, but the pieces are uneven: 'Places carry the wiki page they are' is grammatically broken and unclear, and 'Returns: The pins.' restates the title without adding information. The scope statement is correctly front-loaded, but two of three sentences don't fully earn their place.

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 only two well-documented required params and rich annotations, the basics are covered. However, there is no output schema, and the description's return-value sentence ('The pins') gives no shape, so an agent cannot anticipate the pin object fields beyond the vague wiki-page hint.

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 'map' and 'campaign' are documented with sourcing hints (map id from list_maps, campaign by slug or id). The description adds no meaning beyond that, 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 (list pins) scoped to one map, and clarifies the visibility mix: shared pins plus the caller's own private ones. That scope wording implicitly separates it from list_my_private_pins, but it never names that sibling, so an agent must 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?

Usage is only implied by the phrase 'on one map' – the agent can infer it needs a map id and that this is the per-map view. There is no explicit when-to-use, no when-not-to-use, and no named alternative such as list_my_private_pins or create_pin.

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