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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and non-destructive, so the description does not need to repeat that. It adds meaningful behavioral context by disclosing the 50-pin upper bound, the ranking-by-metric behavior, and the enrichment with SocialRobot publish data 'when available.' This goes beyond what annotations provide.

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 two sentences with no filler. It leads with the core action and resource, then the key constraints and data-enrichment detail. Every phrase 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?

The description is sufficient for a read-only analytics tool with a simple schema: it states what is returned, the limit, the ranking dimension, and the enrichment behavior. It does not describe response shape, but given the lack of an output schema, the description still provides enough context for correct invocation and expectation setting.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden of explaining parameters. It maps accountId to 'Pinterest account', startDate/endDate to 'for the date range', and sortBy to 'ranked by impressions or another metric.' This adds useful conceptual meaning even though it does not enumerate exact defaults or enum behavior, which the schema already covers.

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 and resource: 'Return Pinterest account top pins' with a clear bound ('up to 50') and ranking criterion ('by impressions or another metric'). It clearly identifies the Pinterest-specific nature and differentiates itself from sibling tools like get_account_analytics or get_posts_with_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 implies usage for retrieving top Pinterest pins within a date range, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over sibling analytics tools or when not to use it. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, so the guidance is present but implicit.

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