get_pinterest_board_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the core behavior (returns name and pin count) and that it accepts short links, which is useful. However, it does not explicitly state that this is read-only or describe any side effects, error handling, or authentication requirements. For a simple lookup, this is acceptable but not richly transparent.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the primary purpose and returns the exact information. It includes a relevant note about short links without any fluff. Every word earns its place, and it is easily scannable.

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 single-parameter lookup tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers the essential context: what it does, what input it expects, and what output it provides (name and pin count). It lacks details about error responses or whether authentication is needed, but the tool's simplicity means an agent likely has enough information to call 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?

The schema provides only a parameter named 'board_url' with a title 'Board Url' and no description (0% coverage). The description compensates by explaining that the parameter is a URL of a board and that pin.it short links are accepted, giving the agent concrete guidance on what value to provide. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 ('look up') with a specific resource ('Pinterest board') and the exact output ('name and total pin count'). It also notes that it accepts pin.it short links, which adds specificity. This differentiates it from sibling tools like get_pinterest_boards (likely lists boards) and fetch_pinterest_board (likely fetches full board details) without needing to open schemas.

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 when to use this tool (when you need just the name and total pin count of a board) but does not explicitly state alternatives or exclusions. It does not mention when to prefer get_pinterest_boards or fetch_pinterest_board. There is no clear 'use this instead of X' guidance, so it's adequate but not explicit.

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