Get top performing 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 genuinely useful non-schema context by naming the required scopes (user_accounts:read, pins:read), but it says nothing about pagination, rate limits, or what happens at the 90-day boundary.

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 dense sentence with the core action and the usage cue front-loaded, then the permission scope. No filler, though it is arguably terse given 11 parameters.

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?

With no output schema, the description should carry more of the return-value and routing burden. It explains the ranking concept and permissions, but omits sibling disambiguation and any sense of what a ranked result contains, leaving a meaningful gap for a tool with this many parameters.

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 73%, so the schema already documents most parameters including sort_by, the date bounds, and metric_types. The description only paraphrases "by a metric over a date window," adding no format or constraint detail beyond what the schema carries. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ("Rank") and resource ("the account's pins") with the mechanism ("by a metric over a date window"). However, it never distinguishes itself from the very close sibling pinterest_get_top_video_pins, which an agent could easily swap in.

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 tool to reach for when asked what is working" gives a scenario, which is more than nothing. But there are no conditions for choosing among the analytics siblings (get_top_video_pins, get_pin_analytics, get_multi_pin_analytics) and no when-not guidance.

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