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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the sole behavioral trait (read-only retrieval) is covered. The description adds slight context about the account requirement but no details on pagination, rate limits, or return behavior. With annotations present, this is adequate.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that states the action and scope without wasted words. Perfectly sized for a simple read tool.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the basics but omits return format details and any mention of what constitutes a 'connected' account. It's minimally complete but not deeply informative.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented accountId parameter. The phrase 'for a connected Pinterest account' implies accountId identifies that account, but it doesn't explain how tos ource or format the value. Minimal compensation beyond the 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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and a clear resource ('Pinterest boards'), scoped to a connected Pinterest account. This distinguishes it from siblings like list_posts and pinterest_create_board.

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 implies when to use the tool (when you need boards for a connected account) but gives no explicit guidance on alternatives or prerequisites, such as obtaining accountId from list_connected_accounts.

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