pinterest_get_trends

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. The word 'Read' implies a non-mutating operation, but it does not disclose behavior like endpoint selection via mode, response shape, pagination, rate limits, or whether some modes require additional query parameters. This is thin coverage for a complex tool.

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, waste-free sentence that front-loads the resource and then lists all supported content types. It is appropriately compact, though a slightly structured breakdown of the mode-to-data mapping would improve scannability.

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?

Given the tool's complexity—16 parameters, 6 enum modes, nested query objects, no output schema, and many sibling tools—a one-sentence overview is not sufficient. An agent cannot reliably determine which parameters apply to each mode, what the returned data looks like, or which sibling to prefer.

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 only 6%, so the description must compensate, but it fails to explain most parameters. The list of growing/monthly/yearly/seasonal keywords maps indirectly to the trendType and mode enums, yet region, productRegion, productLookbackDays, includeKeywords, featuredInterest, and the generic query object are left undocumented in both schema and description.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Read Pinterest Trends') and then enumerates the distinct output categories: keywords by growth period, product categories and details, featured topics, and editorial articles. This clearly separates it from sibling tools like get_keyword_intelligence, audience insights, or pin analytics.

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 when to use the tool: whenever you need Pinterest Trends data in any of the listed forms. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it, which mode to pick for a given need, or how it compares with sibling tools such as get_keyword_intelligence or get_targeting_options.

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