search_pinterest

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose pagination up to 5 pages per query and explains the cursor parameter, but does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, mention authentication needs, or describe the response format. The safety profile is implied but not stated.

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 concise and well-structured: a one-sentence summary, a note on pagination, and a clear args list. Every sentence adds value, and it is front-loaded with the main purpose.

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 simple two-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, pagination, and both parameters. It does not detail the return structure, but the core use case is clear and the tool is not overly complex. The lack of output schema and annotations makes it slightly incomplete, but acceptable for the scope.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description provides an `Args` list that explains `q` with an example ('aesthetic coffee') and defines `cursor` as 'Pagination cursor from a previous response.' This adds meaningful context beyond the schema's bare parameter names and types.

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 'Search Pinterest for high-resolution images to use in slideshows,' which specifies the verb (search), resource (Pinterest), and intended use case. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_library and get_collection_images.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool (to find high-resolution images for slideshows) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. It implies the use case rather than specifying when not to use it.

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