search_pins

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

There are no annotations and no description of side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or pagination. Although 'Search public pins' implies read-only behavior, the description does not explicitly disclose non-destructive guarantees or any hidden limitations.

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 extremely concise and well-structured: two short sentences that immediately convey the core purpose and a likely use case. There is no unnecessary verbiage.

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 search endpoint, the description covers the essential intent and the primary parameter, but it lacks details about result ordering, pagination behavior, or how this relates to analytics and trending endpoints. Given the simple nature, it is minimally adequate but not fully contextual.

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 description explains 'query' implicitly via 'by keyword', but 'page_size' is not explained at all. With two parameters and only partial coverage, the description does not sufficiently clarify the meaning and constraints of each parameter.

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 ('Search'), the resource ('public Pinterest pins'), and the key qualifier ('by keyword'). It also hints at the intended use case ('trend research'), which helps distinguish it from more general pin management 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 gives a vague use case ('useful for trend research') but does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over siblings like get_trending or when not to use it. No alternative tools or conditions are mentioned.

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