Related Pinterest pins

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so safety and scope are covered; the description adds the similarity-based nature of results. It says nothing about pagination (the bookmark parameter) or that results are ranked by visual/topical proximity — useful context the annotations do not carry.

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 waste, with the core purpose front-loaded and the prerequisite last. Readers get the intent and the input constraint in one pass.

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 read-only, single-required-param query tool with full schema documentation and no output schema, the description covers what is needed to call it correctly. A note on paging through bookmark or how similarity ranking behaves would close the remaining gap.

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 every parameter including limit, media, bookmark and previews is already documented. The description restates the pin-accepts-link-or-id rule from the schema without adding format or edge-case detail. Baseline 3 applies.

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+resource+relation: find pins visually and topically similar to a given pin, with the "More like this" gloss making the semantics unmistakable. It implicitly distinguishes itself from pinterest_search (keyword discovery) and pinterest_get_pin (fetch one pin), though it never names a sibling.

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?

Adds one real usage condition — "Needs a real pin link or numeric id" — which warns the agent it must first resolve a pin before calling. There is no explicit when-not or named alternative (e.g. "use pinterest_search for keyword discovery"), so routing between siblings is left to inference.

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