pinterest_board

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that the data is public and sourced from Pinterest's own board pages, and it describes the return shape (metadata plus a page of pins), implying a read-only operation. It does not cover rate limits or error behavior, preventing a higher score.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and contains no filler. Every sentence adds useful information: what is returned and that the data is public from Pinterest's board pages.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description reasonably covers the main output: board metadata fields plus a page of pins. It is sufficient for a low-complexity tool, though the phrase 'a page of pins' could be more explicit about pagination limits or pin field details.

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 100%: both username and slug are documented in the input schema with clear descriptions. The tool description itself does not add parameter-level detail, but this is acceptable because the schema already provides full meaning.

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 starts with a specific verb and resource: 'Get a Pinterest board's detail.' It enumerates the returned metadata (name, description, cover image, pin/follower counts, owner) and pins, making the tool's scope clear and distinguishing it from sibling tools like pinterest_user_boards or pinterest_pin.

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 clearly signals use for retrieving a single board's metadata and pins. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion cases, but the context is unambiguous enough for an agent to select this tool when a board's detail is needed.

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