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

Annotations already establish that the tool is read-Only and non-destructive, and the description adds useful context on top of that: a 50-pin limit, date-range scoping, metric-based ranking, and enrichment with SocialRobot publish data when available. It does not specify a default sort or output structure, but it goes beyond the annotation baseline.

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?

Two focused sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the action, scope, and main constraint; the second adds data provenance and enrichment detail. The important information is front-loaded and 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?

This tool has four parameters, no parameter descriptions, and no output schema, so the description must compensate. It communicates the broad result concept but omits output shape, default ranking behavior, and parameter-level meaning, leaving enough ambiguity that an agent would need to infer or look elsewhere for invocation details.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description carries the burden of explaining parameters, but it only mentions 'date range' and 'impressions or another metric' in general terms. It does not explain accountId, date format expectations, or the relevance of each sortBy enum value, so an agent gets little help beyond the raw schema.

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 a specific verb-resource statement: 'Return Pinterest account top pins' and adds concrete constraints: up to 50, date range, and ranking by impressions or another metric. This makes the tool's purpose immediately identifiable and distinguishes it from siblings like pinterest_list_boards or get_account_analytics.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus close alternatives such as get_posts_with_analytics, get_post_analytics, or get_account_analytics. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-selection advice.

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