pinterest_get_board

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. 'Safe read' discloses the non-destructive nature, which is valuable. However, it does not describe what specific details are returned, error behavior, or any other behavioral traits, leaving some ambiguity.

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 extremely concise: two short phrases that convey the essential purpose and safety. Every word is functional, with no redundancy or fluff.

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 single-parameter, read-only getter, the description sufficiently covers the operation. While it lacks detail on the return payload, the phrase 'board's details' implies the core output. The absence of an output schema is not critical given the straightforward nature of the 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 has 100% coverage with 'The board id' for the single parameter. The description adds no additional format, type constraints, or usage notes, but with full schema coverage the baseline 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 action ('Fetch'), the resource ('one board's details'), and the method ('by id'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_boards, which retrieves multiple boards, and get_pin, which targets a different resource.

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 the use case: when you have a specific board ID and need that board's details. It provides clear context but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, which is acceptable for a simple singleton getter.

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