pinterest_user

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly notes that only public data is returned and that it is sourced from Pinterest's own profile pages, which conveys the read-only, non-sensitive nature of the operation. However, it does not discuss error scenarios, rate limits, or response format, which is a minor gap for a simple profile retrieval tool.

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 exceptionally concise: two sentences. The first sentence front-loads the purpose, and the second succinctly enumerates the return fields. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is largely complete. It states the purpose, the data returned, and the data source. It could be enhanced by mentioning what happens if a username is invalid or if data is unavailable, but for a public profile getter, this is a minor omission.

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 already fully describes the single parameter 'username' with 'Pinterest username', achieving 100% schema coverage. The tool description does not add further meaning or detail about the parameter itself, so the baseline score of 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's function with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('Pinterest user's public profile'), and enumerates the returned fields (display name, bio, website, avatar, counts). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like pinterest_user_pins or pinterest_user_boards, which focus on pins or boards rather than profile details.

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 implicitly indicates when to use this tool: whenever a Pinterest user's public profile data is needed. It provides clear context about what the tool returns, but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion criteria. Since the purpose is unambiguous and effectively guides the agent, this earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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