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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and openWorld, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds little beyond restating 'Read-only' and the board_id linkage; it omits pagination/bookmark behavior and rate-limit context that would matter for an openWorld list call.

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 purpose and followed by the concrete usage linkage; 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?

No output schema exists, so the description should convey return shape and pagination, but only implies board ids. With 5 params at 20% coverage and a nested 'query' object, it is adequate but leaves real gaps for an agent to call it correctly.

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 only 20%, so the description must compensate and mostly doesn't. It never explains bookmark (cursor), page_size, brand_id, or the opaque 'query' override. Only workspace_id is implicitly justified by 'in a workspace'; the other four parameters are left undocumented.

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 the Pinterest boards') scoped to a workspace, and uniquely identifies the return value's downstream consumer (board_id fed into aidelly_create_post). Distinguished from platform-agnostic siblings like aidelly_list_accounts.

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?

Clearly implies when to use: to fetch a board id before calling aidelly_create_post. That cross-tool linkage is genuinely helpful. However, it gives no exclusions (e.g., when not to list) and no mention of pagination to guide iterative calling.

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