Read from any Pinterest API endpoint

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description still adds real value by enumerating the read-shaped POST exceptions, which an agent could not infer from the readOnly annotation alone. It omits pagination, error, and auth behavior, which matters given a free-form passthrough to an external API.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the scope statement, then the method restriction, then the path/query conventions. The parenthetical list of read-only POST types is dense but earns its space by defining an otherwise fuzzy boundary.

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 an open-ended escape-hatch tool with no output schema and an unconstrained body/query, the definition covers the essentials an agent needs to form a valid call. Missing pieces are error handling, pagination, and any hint about what body is used for, which keeps it from a 5.

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 must carry the load: it explains that path is relative to the v5 base with a concrete example, that list values in query are sent as repeated parameters and must be comma-joined where the API expects it, and constrains method to GET/read-only POST. Only body is left entirely unexplained, so it falls just short of full compensation.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Read from any Pinterest API v5 endpoint') and explicitly scopes it to endpoints the other tools don't cover, which immediately distinguishes it from the 70+ named siblings that handle specific resources.

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?

Gives an explicit rule for what is permitted (GET, plus read-only POSTs such as report/export requests, audience sizing, bid floors, delivery estimates, catalog item lookups) and names the alternative for everything else ('use pinterest_ads_request for writes'). It also implies the selection order: prefer a specific tool, fall back to this one.

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