User Boards

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

Annotations only declare the generic profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true); the description adds the operationally important facts that credits are consumed, confirm=true is mandatory, responses are paginated, and even though it is a POST it does not publish to social platforms. It does not explain rate limits, cursor lifetime, or error behavior, so it stops short of a 5.

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 tightly packed sentences with the returned fields and pagination front-loaded, followed by the cost/confirmation constraint. Every clause carries information, with only the unsupported 'cursor' mention detracting 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?

There is no output schema, so enumerating the returned fields (name, url, pin_count, follower_count, owner, cover_images, created_at) plus pagination and trim meaningfully fills the gap. The credit/confirm requirement is also covered. Left slightly incomplete by the unexplained cursor and the absence of guidance on how to retrieve subsequent pages.

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 handle, account, confirm and trim are already documented in the schema, and the description mostly restates trim and confirm. It also references 'pagination via cursor', yet no cursor parameter exists in the schema, so this adds a small amount of ambiguity rather than clarifying a parameter. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 (fetch a paginated list of boards for a Pinterest user) and enumerates the returned fields, which cleanly distinguishes it from the sibling pinterest_board (single board) and pinterest_search. An agent can identify exactly what this returns without opening the schema.

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 preconditions for calling it: paid API credits are involved and confirm=true is required, plus notes the trim option for lighter responses. It does not, however, explicitly contrast the tool with pinterest_board or pinterest_search or state when a user-board lookup is the wrong choice, so 4 rather than 5.

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