Get Pinned Posts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered elsewhere. The description adds nothing beyond that — no note on whether an empty list is returned when nothing is pinned, whether the channel must be public, or how pinned items are ordered.

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?

One short sentence with the scope qualifier front-loaded and zero wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple getter, though it is so terse that nothing is structured beyond the single clause.

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?

An output schema exists and annotations cover the safety profile, so the essentials for invoking the tool are present. Still, a minimal description like this leaves the agent without ordering, pagination, or empty-result expectations for a read that could return an unbounded list.

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?

With a single required parameter at 100% schema coverage, the schema fully documents channel_id and the description adds no meaning on top of it. Baseline 3 applies since the schema carries the parameter burden.

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 ('Get the posts') with the qualifying scope 'pinned in a channel', which inherently separates it from get_channel_posts. It stops short of explicitly naming that sibling, so an agent must infer that the unpinned variant lives elsewhere.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus get_channel_posts, get_post, or search_posts, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The only guidance is implicit in the word 'pinned'.

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