get_pinterest_boards

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It reveals that the tool returns board urls and pin counts, which implies a read-only listing operation. However, it does not explicitly state that it is read-only, nor does it mention authentication requirements, rate limits, or whether it returns all boards or has any limit. It adds value beyond the schema by specifying the output fields, but lacks depth on side effects or constraints.

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 with no wasted words. It front-loads the main purpose and the specific output fields. It is appropriately sized for a simple listing tool.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides enough to call it correctly: it states the input (user) and the key output (url and pin count). It could mention pagination or limits, but for a basic listing operation, this is nearly complete. It does not leave critical gaps that would prevent a correct invocation.

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 offers zero description coverage, so the description must compensate. It implicitly ties the 'username' parameter to the Pinterest user whose boards are listed, giving context. However, it does not elaborate on formatting, validation, or optional aspects. This is a minimal but functional clarification of the parameter's role.

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 (list), the resource (Pinterest user's boards), and the specific data returned (url and pin count). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like search_pinterest_images (search images) and get_pinterest_board_info (likely detailed info on a single board) by focusing on listing boards with basic metadata.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or a typical scenario where this tool is preferred over siblings like fetch_pinterest_board or get_pinterest_board_info. An agent must infer usage from the description alone.

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