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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it discloses response size and the effect of the trim parameter (trim ratio, what fields are kept), which goes beyond the schema. It doesn't contradict annotations.

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 packed with useful information but is slightly longer than necessary. It front-loads the core purpose and then adds efficiency details. Every sentence contributes value, though the trim ratio could be considered a minor distraction; still efficient.

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 low-complexity tool with only two parameters, one required, and an output schema present, the description covers purpose, usage, parameter semantics, and behavior. There are no gaps that would prevent an agent from calling this tool correctly.

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?

The schema already documents both parameters (trim and handle) with examples and descriptions, so baseline is 3. However, the description enhances meaning by explaining the trim impact (size reduction and field list), which is not in the schema, adding clear value 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 clearly states the tool lists a user's public boards by username, with a cursor for pagination. It identifies the specific resource (Pinterest user boards) and differentiates itself from siblings by naming get_pinterest_board for board pins and get_pinterest_search for Pinterest-wide search.

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 instructs to use get_pinterest_board for reading board pins and get_pinterest_search for searching across Pinterest, providing clear when-to-use guidance. It also specifies the handle format (bare username, not full URL), which is a key usage detail.

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