Get analytics for several pins

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the required auth scope ('pins:read'), which is genuinely useful context not present in structured fields, but it discloses nothing about rate limits or result shape. With annotations carrying the safety burden, a 3 is appropriate.

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?

Two tight sentences with no waste; the batching benefit and the sibling comparison are front-loaded, and the scope constraint is appended compactly.

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 read-only batch analytics tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose, routing, and auth scope adequately. Only minor gaps remain, such as return format or batching cost behavior, none of which would cause a misinvocation.

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 100%, so all six parameters, including the 90-day window constraint and enum values, are already documented in the schema. The description's only added detail, the 100-pin cap, merely restates maxItems. Baseline 3 is correct when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb+resource+scope ('Analytics for up to 100 pins in one call') and explicitly names the sibling it replaces (pinterest_get_pin_analytics). An agent can distinguish it from pinterest_get_pin_analytics and pinterest_get_user_analytics without opening any schema.

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?

Names the alternative tool and gives the condition that favors this one ('far cheaper than looping pinterest_get_pin_analytics'), which is the key routing signal. It stops short of stating when NOT to use it (e.g., for a single pin), so it falls just short of a 5.

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