List pins on a board

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 OAuth scopes (pins:read, boards:read), which is genuinely useful auth context, but says nothing about pagination behavior, rate limits, or result shape for a list tool that exposes a bookmark cursor.

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 compact sentences that are front-loaded with the core action, followed by the scope requirement. Nothing is wasted and no preamble delays the substance.

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?

Parameters are fully documented and no output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required. However, for a list tool sitting among several similarly named listing siblings, the definition omits the routing guidance and pagination context an agent needs to pick and invoke it confidently.

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 (board_id, bookmark, page_size, pin_metrics, ad_account_id, creative_types) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that baseline.

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 (List) and resource (pins saved to a board), so the core action is unambiguous. It does not, however, differentiate itself from close siblings such as pinterest_list_board_section_pins or pinterest_list_pins, leaving the agent to infer the distinction.

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 offers no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives among the many sibling list tools. The agent must infer that this is the board-wide (non-section) listing from the name alone.

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