list_pinterest_boards

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and open-world, so safety behavior is covered. The description adds the per-account scoping constraint but says nothing about pagination, result size, or behavior when the account has no boards — a modest addition over the annotations.

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 with zero filler: the first defines the output, the second justifies the call. The most decision-relevant fact (you get boardIds) is front-loaded.

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 one-parameter, read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned (boards and their ids) and the prerequisite account id. It omits result volume/pagination expectations, which is a minor gap for a simple listing tool.

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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter is already documented as an id from list_connected_accounts. The description reinforces the one-account-per-call nature of the parameter but adds no format or validity detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 names the resource (Pinterest boards with their ids) and the scope (one connected Pinterest account), which is enough to distinguish it from every sibling — no other tool lists boards. The verb is only implied ("its boards"), so it falls just short of an explicit verb+resource statement.

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?

"A Pinterest post needs a boardId from this list" tells the agent exactly why and when to call it, and the schema links the upstream prerequisite (list_connected_accounts). It stops short of naming an explicit alternative or exclusion, but there is no competing sibling to route away from.

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