pinterest_get_authorization_url

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a side effect (starting a local listener) and that it returns URL plus instructions, but it does not detail blocking behavior, timeout, or what 'safe connection instructions' entail. This is helpful but incomplete.

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 a single, well-front-loaded sentence that conveys the core action, side effect, and output without waste.

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 simple one-parameter tool with no annotations or output schema, the description provides sufficient context to use it: it starts a listener and returns a URL with instructions. It does not explicitly mention user interaction or return format, but these are somewhat implied by 'safe connection instructions.'

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 single parameter 'scopes' is fully described in the schema (100% coverage) with 'Optional OAuth scopes override. Otherwise PINTEREST_OAUTH_SCOPES is used.' The description adds no additional parameter context, so a 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 tool's action ('Starts the local Pinterest OAuth callback listener') and its output ('returns the authorization URL plus safe connection instructions'). This distinguishes it from siblings (server_status, connection_status, disconnect) which are status/disconnect tools.

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 this is the tool to initiate OAuth authorization by starting a callback listener, and it is distinct from the sibling status/disconnect tools. However, there is no explicit statement about when to use it versus alternatives or any prerequisites (e.g., needing PINTEREST_OAUTH_SCOPES).

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