list_pinterest_pins

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the board scoping but says nothing about pagination behavior despite bookmark and page_size parameters signaling a paginated endpoint, nor about return format.

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?

One clean sentence with no waste, and the resource+scope is front-loaded. It is efficient but borders on under-specification for a four-parameter 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 paginated list endpoint with four parameters, only partial schema coverage, and no output schema, the description omits pagination semantics, auth expectations (access_token), and return shape. Given annotations cover safety, the remaining behavioral gaps still leave the agent short of what it needs to call this correctly.

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 only 25% — board_id is documented but bookmark, page_size, and access_token are undocumented in both schema and description. The single description sentence does not compensate for this gap, explaining none of the pagination or auth parameters.

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 states a specific verb (List) and resource (pins) scoped to a Pinterest board, so the core action is unmistakable. It does not differentiate itself from the sibling search_pinterest_pins, leaving the agent to infer the difference between listing a board's pins versus searching pins.

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?

Usage is implied by 'on a Pinterest board' — use this to enumerate a board's pins — but there is no explicit when/when-not guidance or reference to the obvious alternative search_pinterest_pins. The agent must infer the selection criteria itself.

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