pinterest_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the data is public, sourced from Pinterest's own web search, and enumerates the result fields. This is solid transparency for a read-only search tool, though it omits pagination and result limits.

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?

Two sentences that front-load the verb and resource, list the return payload, and cite the data source. There is zero filler and no repetition of schema details.

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 one-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, return fields, and data source adequately. It lacks detail on pagination or result limits, but this is a minor gap for a public web search 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 schema already fully documents the single 'query' parameter with 100% coverage and a 'Search text' description. The description's phrase 'text query' adds only minor reinforcement and does not explain query syntax or formatting, so it stays at the baseline.

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 opens with the specific verb-resource pair 'Search Pinterest pins' and lists exactly what is returned (title, description, image, board, pinner) for a text query. It clearly distinguishes this generic search tool from sibling tools like pinterest_user_pins 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 implies this is for text-query searches for public Pinterest pins, which is clear context. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state exclusions, but the scope is unambiguous for a simple search tool.

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