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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description adds substantial behavioral detail: return fields per state, error_code/error_message on failure, pinterest_pin_id once published, removed_from_pinterest_at behavior, and not_found for unknown ids. This goes well beyond the structured annotations.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose and then organized into usage guidance and return behavior. Each sentence earns its place, and the structure makes the information easy to scan without being bloated.

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 one-parameter read tool, the description is complete: it explains when to poll, what each outcome returns, how deletion is reflected, and how unknown ids fail. No output schema exists, so the description correctly carries the burden of explaining return values.

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?

The schema already documents pin_id as 'UUID of the pin, from list_pins or create_pin' with 100% coverage, so the description adds little new parameter-level meaning. It does mention not_found for unknown ids, which is useful behavioral context, but does not further clarify the parameter itself.

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 opens with 'Fetch one pin's current status, Pinterest ID and any publish error,' which names a specific verb, resource, and scope. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly naming list_pins, get_pin_analytics, and retry_pin for other use cases.

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?

It explicitly states when to use this tool: 'Use to poll a pin from create_pin until it is published, failed or deferred, or to read why it failed.' It also provides exclusions and alternatives: 'To find pins without an id use list_pins; for impressions and clicks use get_pin_analytics; to fix a failure use retry_pin.'

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