Get Pinterest pin

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds non-obvious behavior beyond that: the failure mode for e1_ prefixed ids and the fact that the payload is a full single-pin detail record. It does not say what happens on an invalid or missing pin, but the additions are substantive for an annotated 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 sentences, zero waste. The capability and its returned fields come first, and the exclusion caveat follows, which is the right ordering for an agent scanning for fit.

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?

No output schema exists, so the inline enumeration of returned fields carries the return-value contract and does so adequately. With annotations covering safety and the schema covering both parameters, nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description goes further by constraining the 'pin' argument — it is a link or numeric id, and e1_ style ids are invalid. That value-level restriction is not expressed in the schema and prevents a predictable error.

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 ('Get full details for one pin') and enumerates the returned fields (description, image, source, board, creator, saves, comments), so the agent knows exactly what it gets back. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the listing/search path by ruling out anonymous e1_ ids.

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 a clear negative case — anonymous search ids cannot be looked up because their data is already in the search result — which steers the agent away from a wasted call. It does not name a sibling tool explicitly (pinterest_search, pinterest_related_pins) as the alternative, leaving that inference to the agent.

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