get_pinterest_user

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=true, idempotent=true, openWorld=true, destructive=false, so the safety profile is well covered. The description adds that this targets the 'authenticated' account, but doesn't describe behavior when the token is missing/expired or what fields return. Modest added value over 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?

A single efficient sentence with no waste, front-loading the verb and resource. It is slightly thin but appropriately sized for a simple read tool.

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 single-object read with full safety annotations and no output schema needed, the description is close to adequate. However, it says nothing about the undocumented access_token or auth failure behavior, leaving minor gaps.

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?

One parameter (access_token) has 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it or distinguishes the optional token from a required one (0 required). With low coverage the description should compensate but does not.

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?

States a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('authenticated Pinterest user account info'), clearly a self-lookup against the authenticated account. It's distinct from siblings (which deal with boards/pins), though it doesn't explicitly name them.

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 word 'authenticated' implies usage is limited to the token's owner and requires credentials, so context is inferable. But there's no explicit when-to-use vs alternative or prerequisite statement, leaving it to inference.

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