get_pins_by_pin_id

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds only that this is an OAuth PIN status GET request, without extra behavioral context such as what statuses may be returned or any PIN lifecycle considerations. It aligns with annotations and adds minor value beyond them.

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 very short and the key information, the GET endpoint and resource, is front-loaded. The Args block is redundant with the input schema, but it does not bloat the description significantly.

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-parameter read-only status lookup with annotations and an output schema present, the description is largely sufficient. It could mention what the response contains or how this fits into the OAuth PIN flow, but the absence is not critical given the output schema and simple parameter.

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 0%, so the description needed to compensate, but it only restates the schema's 'Pin Id' as 'The unique identifier of the pin'. This is tautological and does not clarify where the pin_id comes from, how it is formatted, or any relationship to OAuth flows.

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 action and resource: 'Get OAuth PIN Status' plus the endpoint 'GET /pins/{pinId}'. The purpose is unmistakable and naturally distinct from sibling tools like create_pins and update_pins_link.

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 the tool is used to retrieve the status of an OAuth PIN, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer it over alternatives, nor does it mention create_pins or update_pins_link by name. The simple read-oriented purpose makes the usage context reasonably inferable, but explicit guidance is absent.

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