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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds the useful context that the account must already be connected, but it does not disclose output shape, pagination behavior, or failure modes. This is reasonable for a simple read-only listing tool, but not rich behavioral disclosure.

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 sentence that front-loads the action and resource without any filler. Every word contributes meaning, and the description is appropriately sized for such a simple 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, read-only listing tool, the description provides a complete enough picture: it identifies the resource returned and the precondition of a connected account. The lack of an output schema is partially mitigated because the description clearly says the return value is boards, though it does not detail board object structure.

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%, and the only parameter, accountId, is left entirely to the schema without a property description. The description refers to a 'connected Pinterest account', which loosely implies that accountId identifies the connected account, but it does not explicitly explain the parameter's meaning, format, or where to source it.

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 states a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('Pinterest boards available for a connected Pinterest account'), clearly identifying what the tool does. It is easily distinguished from siblings like pinterest_create_board (create vs list) and list_posts (boards vs posts).

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 phrase 'available for a connected Pinterest account' implies the tool should be used after an account has been connected, and the sibling list_connected_accounts is a natural source for accountId. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusion criteria.

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