pinterest_search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that no authentication is required and describes the return payload (images/gifs/videos, direct URLs, pagination bookmark), which gives useful behavioral context beyond a bare 'search' statement.

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 tight sentences: first states the action, second states the return and auth trait. No filler or redundancy; every word contributes.

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 search tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core return contract and auth. It omits details like sort order, default result behavior, or rate limits, but given schema covers most params, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to use it correctly.

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 75%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal param-level insight beyond the schema—only the keyword concept is reinforced. It does not explain limit or further elaborate on mediaType/bookmark, so it doesn't elevate above 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 clearly states the tool searches Pinterest by keyword, identifying the specific verb (search) and resource (pins). It distinguishes this from sibling tools like get_pin or board_pins by focusing on keyword-based search.

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 implies usage for keyword searches and provides clear context about returns (media URLs, pagination) and auth requirements. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use, so it misses the full 5-level.

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