Pin

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

Adds context annotations don't carry: paid API credit consumption, the mandatory confirm=true gate, and the clarification that this read-like POST does not publish to social platforms (which explains the readOnlyHint=false annotation rather than contradicting it). Cache behavior is left entirely to the schema, so it isn't fully complete but is well above the annotation baseline.

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, front-loaded with the core action and its return payload, then the cost/confirm caveat. Slightly dense in the field enumeration but each item maps to a distinct part of the response, so little is wasted.

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 usefully enumerates the return payload and offsetting details like trim, credits, and confirm. It omits pagination/error behavior and the caching interaction, which is the main remaining gap for a paid, confirm-gated call.

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 the schema already defines url, trim, account, confirm, and cache_max_age. The description only restates the trim option and mentions confirm, adding no syntax or format detail beyond the structured fields, so the 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 precise verb (fetches) plus resource (a single Pinterest pin) and pins down the identifier type (by URL). It enumerates the returned fields and distinguishes itself from the sibling pinterest_search/pinterest_board tools by operating on exactly one pin.

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 operational guidance (confirm=true required, trim option, credit cost) but never states when to choose this over pinterest_board or pinterest_search, nor any exclusion beyond the by-URL case implied by the schema. Usage is inferable from the resource scope but not made explicit.

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