search_pinterest_images

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the tool downloads files (a side effect) and specifies 'full-resolution images,' but omits critical details such as whether it creates the output directory, handles overwrites, requires authentication, or returns any path information. This is minimal behavioral context for a tool with side effects.

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, front-loaded sentence that wastes no words. It conveys the action, scope, and key parameter semantics immediately, with backticked placeholders for clarity. Adequately concise without sacrificing essential information.

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?

The tool has 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description covers the basic search-and-download action but fails to explain the output directory parameter, potential return values (e.g., local file paths), error-handling behavior, or any prerequisites. An agent would lack critical information needed to call this tool correctly and predict its side effects.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explicitly references `query` and `count` (clarifying count as a maximum), but completely ignores `out_dir`, which is a significant parameter controlling where downloads are saved. The schema itself provides defaults and titles, but the description adds little semantic value beyond that.

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 verb combination ('Search' and 'download') with a specific resource (Pinterest images) and a quantifiable output (up to `count` full-resolution images). It distinctly differentiates from sibling tools like `get_pinterest_boards` and `fetch_pinterest_board`, which deal with board metadata rather than image search and download.

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 purpose is unambiguous and naturally implies when to use it (searching for images), but the description does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. The distinction from board-related siblings is implicit via the name and description, but no explicit routing guidance is provided.

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