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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, but the description adds valuable behavioral details: error conditions (not_found, account_not_permitted, token_expired/token_revoked/scope_missing) and the return shape (id, name, description, privacy). This goes beyond annotation safety to inform agents about failure modes and output, which is exactly what is needed. No contradiction.

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 three well-structured sentences: primary purpose, usage context with alternatives, and return/error information. It is front-loaded with the main action, then gives practical guidance, then technical details. No wasted words; every sentence earns its 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?

For a simple list operation with one parameter and an output schema, the description is complete: it states the purpose, when to use it, alternatives, return fields, and error handling. It also connects to related tools and even provides a manual fallback URI. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly and interpret results.

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 single parameter account_id is fully described in the schema with context (UUID from list_pinterest_accounts), and schema coverage is 100%. The tool description does not add extra meaning to the parameter itself; it only references account_id indirectly. Per rules, baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema handles parameter documentation.

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 states the tool lists boards an account can publish to, using the specific verb 'List' and resource 'boards'. It distinguishes from board mutation tools (create/update/delete) and explicitly ties to downstream use cases (picking board_id for create_pin/create_schedule). It also names a sibling tool (check_board_access) for a different purpose, so an agent can differentiate them.

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 description explicitly states when to use the tool: to select a board_id for pin creation/scheduling or after board_not_found. It also directs agents to check_board_access when testing a single board's publishability, providing a clear alternative. It even references a non-tool alternative (pinbridge URI) for reading boards, giving full context.

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