Search my pins

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds non-obvious behavioral context beyond that: the required OAuth scope ('pins:read') and the API-level limitation that only the user's own pins are searchable.

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 zero filler; the core scope is front-loaded and the limitation and required scope follow immediately. 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 a read-only search with no output schema, the description covers purpose, scope, and auth requirement adequately; pagination and result format are handled by the schema's bookmark/page_size documentation. Only minor detail about result shape or default behavior is absent.

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 four parameters (query, bookmark, page_size, ad_account_id) are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no syntax or format detail about them, which matches the baseline for fully-covered schemas.

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 ('Full-text search') and resource ('the authenticated user's own pins'), and explicitly rules out global discovery search. This distinguishes it cleanly from siblings like pinterest_list_pins and pinterest_search_my_boards without opening either 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?

Provides a clear usage boundary ('This does NOT search Pinterest globally — the v5 API exposes no public discovery search'), which tells the agent when the tool is and isn't applicable. It does not, however, name or route to sibling alternatives such as list_pins for browsing versus searching.

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