Pins on a Pinterest board

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

readOnlyHint and openWorldHint already declare the safe-read, open-web nature, so the description only needs to add context. It contributes one genuinely useful constraint — the board must be public — but says nothing about pagination limits, rate limiting, or what happens with an invalid/private board URL, which is the main failure mode for an open-world read tool.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, and the core action is front-loaded ahead of the input-format tip. Nothing extraneous.

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 5-parameter list tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose, access scope, and input sourcing adequately. It doesn't preview the shape of the response (pin fields, next_bookmark paging), but the schema's bookmark description carries that.

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%, so every parameter, including the board URL vs. '<user>/<board>' formats, is already documented in structured form. The description restates the board format without adding syntax or edge-case detail, so baseline 3 is correct.

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 and resource — 'List the pins saved on a public board' — with the important scope qualifier 'public'. An agent can distinguish it from pinterest_search or pinterest_get_pin without opening the schema, though sibling tools are never named explicitly.

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?

Gives clear context for when this is the right tool and where the required input comes from ('e.g. one found in a search result's board.url'), and the word 'public' implicitly excludes private boards. It stops short of naming an alternative for keyword-based discovery (pinterest_search) or single-pin lookup (pinterest_get_pin).

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