pinterest_search_pins

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It conveys a read-only search operation and lists the output contents, but it does not mention output format defaults, limit behavior, access constraints, or any other operational details. This is acceptable for a simple search tool but leaves some behavior to inference.

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?

The description is a single sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then concisely lists the relevant output fields. There is no filler, repetition, or unnecessary detail.

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 simple tool with only three parameters, full schema coverage, and an output schema, the description provides enough core information to guide invocation. It could improve by explicitly stating read-only behavior or exclusions, but the low complexity means nothing essential is missing.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3 even without detailed parameter explanations in the tool description. The description adds context about what results look like but does not need to explain query, limit, or format.

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 action ('Search') and a specific resource ('Pinterest pins'), and it names the returned fields (titles, descriptions, links, save counts). This clearly differentiates it from the sibling tools, which are mostly about other platforms or different data types.

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 implies the correct context: use this tool when topic-level Pinterest pin research is needed. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name a sibling alternative, but since no other sibling covers Pinterest pins, the usage context is reasonably clear.

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