pinterest_list_pins

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. 'Safe read' explicitly signals a non-mutating operation, and 'optionally scoped' explains scoping behavior. It does not cover pagination details, but the schema already documents the bookmark parameter, and for a read-only list tool this level of disclosure is adequate.

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 short, front-loaded sentences. Every word adds value: the core behavior, the optional scoping, and a safety hint. No filler or repetition.

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 straightforward listing tool with only optional parameters and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It conveys the resource type, scoping possibility, and safe-read nature. It does not spell out the return structure, but 'List pins' makes it evident.

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 100% (all three parameters have descriptions), so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context for board_id ('optionally scoped to a single board') but adds nothing for bookmark or page_size beyond their schema descriptions.

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 a specific action ('List pins') and a resource ('the account'), optionally scoped by board_id. This distinctly differentiates it from siblings like pinterest_get_pin (single pin) and pinterest_list_boards (boards vs pins).

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 phrase 'List pins on the account' implies general listing, and 'optionally scoped to a single board via board_id' gives conditional usage. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the sibling set and the verb 'list' make the use case clear for enumerating pins.

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