pinterest_idea

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It adds useful context by noting the data is public and sourced from Pinterest's ideas pages, and discloses the return contents. However, it doesn't mention pagination behavior for the 'page of pins,' any auth requirements (though 'public' implies none), or error/edge-case behavior. This is moderate transparency but not rich.

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 purpose, and contains no redundant or filler content. Every sentence adds value: one defines the action, the other details the response and data source.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description does a good job explaining what is returned (metadata fields and a page of pins) and notes public data. Minor gaps remain: no mention of pagination for the pin feed or error responses, but overall the description is reasonably complete for this low-complexity tool.

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 100% coverage for the single `id` parameter, with a clear description referencing the categories list. The tool description itself doesn't add further parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 retrieves a Pinterest 'Ideas' category's detail feed, with a specific verb and resource. It mentions the return contents (metadata and pins) and cites the source for IDs, which hints at sibling differentiation from the categories list tool. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternatives like pinterest_board or pinterest_search for when to use those instead.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only implies that the ID comes from GET /pinterest/categories, but doesn't state when to choose this over pinterest_board, pinterest_pin, or pinterest_search. No exclusions or alternative tool names are given.

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