List pins

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

Annotations cover readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is already known, but the description adds real context: results are ordered newest first and the call requires pins:read with pins:read_secret for secret-board pins. It does not mention pagination mechanics, though the bookmark parameter schema carries that.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the core action and ordering stated first and the auth scope second. Every clause earns its place.

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 an 8-parameter, zero-required listing tool with no output schema, the description covers scope and ordering but is silent on pagination behavior and the shape of results. Adequate as a minimum, but not fully sufficient given the parameter surface.

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 63%, leaving several parameters (pin_type, creative_types, include_protected_pins) undocumented, and the description adds no parameter meaning at all. With 8 parameters and no compensating detail, this falls below the baseline-3 case.

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 (the authenticated user's pins), and the 'authenticated user's' framing implicitly separates it from board-scoped siblings like pinterest_list_board_pins. It does not name a sibling explicitly, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no routing to alternatives such as pinterest_search_my_pins or pinterest_list_board_pins. The only scoping statement is the auth requirement, which is not usage guidance.

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