List where a post can go inside an account

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

Annotations already cover the read-only and non-destructive profile, so the description adds value by warning that SECRET boards are seen only by the owner and that refresh should only be used for a board created moments ago. These are actionable behavioral caveats beyond what annotations provide, with no contradiction.

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 four sentences with no wasted words and front-loads the core purpose. The phrasing is occasionally awkward ('and there this answers that it does not apply'), but every sentence adds a distinct piece of information rather than repeating schema content.

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?

Given the rich output schema and 100% parameter coverage, the description covers the primary use case, the no-destination case, the sections drilldown, the secret-board privacy note, and the refresh caveat. An agent has everything it needs to decide when to call the tool and how to interpret the result.

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%, setting the baseline at 3. The description adds real nuance: id_destination is explained as reading a board's sections, refresh is scoped to just-created boards, and id_account is sourced from list_accounts. This goes beyond simple restatement of the schema field descriptions.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: it lists the places inside a connected account a post can be sent to, concretely identifying Pinterest boards. It also ties the purpose to create_publication by naming destination_id, which clearly differentiates it from general listing tools like list_accounts or list_publications.

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?

It gives clear context: on Pinterest this tool is required to obtain the destination_id for create_publication, and for most networks it explicitly says the destination does not apply. However, it does not name a specific alternative tool or construct an explicit when-not-to-use rule beyond 'most networks have none', so it falls just short of a 5.

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