pinterest_list_operations

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses meaningful behavioral constraints: 263 of 266 operations are reachable, and 131 advertising operations need an ad account. It does not explicitly say the tool is read-only or describe the three missing operations, but 'browse' and 'find an operation id' imply a non-mutating discovery role.

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 tight sentences with no filler. The purpose is front-loaded, and the usage guidance is immediately actionable. Every clause adds useful context.

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?

The description is adequate for basic use: it explains what the tool does, why it exists, and the ad-account prerequisite. But with no output schema and no annotations, important gaps remain: the return shape is not described, 'include_excluded' is unexplained, and the three unreachable operations are not identified.

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 coverage is only 50%: 'search' has a description, but 'include_excluded' has none. The tool description simply repeats the schema text for 'search' and adds no meaning for the undocumented boolean parameter, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

States a specific action ('Browse the Pinterest API') and a concrete outcome: 'Use this to find an operation id for pinterest_call.' It also distinguishes the advertising operations from the organic surface, making the tool's role clear relative to its siblings.

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 explicitly tells the agent when to use the tool: to find an operation id for pinterest_call. It also gives useful context that 131 advertising operations require an ad account. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or how it compares to directly using sibling tools.

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