Get pin

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered; the description still adds the required OAuth scope (pins:read) and the default response contents, which the annotations do not convey. It omits error behavior and whether a 404 is returned for missing pins, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence naming the operation and returned fields, followed by a terse scope clause. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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 single-object read with no output schema, the description tells the agent what the response contains and what scope it needs; the only mild gap is that it does not indicate whether the optional pin_metrics flag changes the payload, which the schema does cover.

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 pin_id, pin_metrics and ad_account_id are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (Fetch) and resource (a single pin by id) and enumerates what the payload contains (media, link, board). The word 'single' implicitly separates it from list_pins and search_my_pins, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 'Scope: pins:read' clause tells the agent the authorization requirement, which is genuinely useful usage context, but there is no statement of when to prefer this tool over pinterest_get_pin_analytics or pinterest_list_pins. Usage is implied rather than directed.

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