List Pinterest boards

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, but the description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that: it explicitly says 'Read-only, 0 credits' (cost disclosure) and 'Needs Pinterest connected' with a settings path. It also explains the interaction pattern (must let user pick) which is behavioral. No contradiction; the description complements the annotations well.

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 compact and front-loaded: it opens with the core function, then the critical workflow note, then cost and prerequisites. Every sentence carries useful information with no redundancy or fluff. It is structured logically from action → workflow → constraints.

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 low-complexity tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers everything essential: what it returns (fields), when to use it (before posting), prerequisites (connection), and cost (0 credits). It even flags a non-obvious requirement (user must pick). No significant information gap remains.

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% — the schema already documents the 'privacy' parameter with its enum and meaning. The tool description does not add any additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. Since coverage is high, the baseline of 3 applies; no extra value is required.

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 clearly states 'List the boards on the user’s connected Pinterest account' — a specific verb, resource, and scope. It enumerates the output fields (id, name, privacy, pin count), which differentiates it from sibling tools like create_pinterest_board or post_to_pinterest. The purpose is unambiguous and distinct.

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 gives explicit usage guidance: 'ALWAYS call this before post_to_pinterest and let the USER pick' — it specifies the prerequisite workflow and why (Pinterest requires a board, Hermoso never chooses). It also states the connection requirement (Settings ▸ Connectors ▸ Pinterest) and notes it's read-only with 0 credits. This is exactly the kind of when-to-use and why info an agent needs.

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