Parse Pinterest URL

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

Annotations already identify the operation as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds behavioral detail about the return payload (kind, canonical URL, host, identifiers), which is helpful. No side effects or auth requirements are relevant given the read-only nature.

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, well-structured sentence that leads with the action and resource, then lists the outputs. There is no redundant wording or unnecessary filler.

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?

With one simple parameter, a clear description, complete annotations, and an output schema, the description covers everything necessary for an agent to select and invoke the tool. The return values are enumerated, and the output schema can provide further structural detail.

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 'url' parameter is described as 'A complete Pinterest or pin.it URL'. The tool description adds no further parameter detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb ('Parse') and resource ('Pinterest URL') and enumerates the outputs (kind, canonical URL, host, and type-specific identifiers). This differentiates it from sibling tools like is_pinterest_url (a boolean check) and normalize_pinterest_url (canonicalization).

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 usage—use this when you need structured components from a Pinterest URL—but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. The sibling tools are visible, but no direct comparison is provided.

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