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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, open-world, non-destructive behavior. The description adds substantial context beyond that: response size measured at about 110 KB for 17 pins, exact size reduction with trim=true (28 KB), which fields are dropped, and the field-level return structure. This is exactly the kind of behavioral disclosure the dimension asks for.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: purpose, return structure, size trade-off, and sibling routing are packed into a concise description. The main action is front-loaded, and the trim guidance is structured as a clear conditional.

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?

Given rich annotations, a complete output schema, and detailed return-field documentation in the description, nothing essential is missing. The description covers return shape, size implications, pagination, and onward navigation to related Pinterest tools.

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 100% and includes parameter descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds real value by clarifying that trim=true cuts response size to 28 KB and changes the field set, and by explaining the cursor as a pagination mechanism. This goes beyond the schema's terse 'Cursor' definition.

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 and resource: 'Searches Pinterest for pins matching a keyword'. It clearly distinguishes return shape (pins plus cursor) and explicitly routes to sibling tools get_pinterest_board and get_pinterest_pin, so an agent can tell it apart without opening other schemas.

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 names the alternatives and the conditions that select them: 'board.url on each result feeds get_pinterest_board' and 'for one pin's engagement counts use get_pinterest_pin'. It also explains when to use the trim parameter and when to skip it, giving clear operational guidance.

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