Search Pinterest

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint; the description adds substantial behavior: promoted pins are filtered out, pins under 500px are flagged low_res, video pins carry video_url and video_seconds, and pagination flows through next_bookmark. That is exactly the operational context annotations cannot convey.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and return shape, then behavior, then parameter guidance, then tips — a sensible ordering with no filler sentences. It is dense but long for a single paragraph; the field enumeration could be tightened slightly.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so fully: field list, video extras, low_res flag, filtering of promoted pins, and paging. An agent has everything needed to call it and interpret results.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds intent behind parameters — media="video" is tied to motion/interaction references, previews to judging style/layout/colour, and bookmark to paging. The 500px low_res threshold also adds semantics not present in the schema.

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 ('Search Pinterest pins by keyword'), plus the scope qualifier 'any language' and the intent ('for visual inspiration'). This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like pinterest_board_pins or pinterest_get_pin, which retrieve pins by board or id rather than keyword.

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 concrete conditional guidance: set media to "video" for motion references, skip low_res pins when a full-size reference is needed, use next_bookmark to page further, and steer style with keywords like "ui" or "poster". It never explicitly routes to or excludes a sibling tool (e.g. board_pins vs keyword search), which keeps it from a 5.

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