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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the bar is lower. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond those annotations: identity mismatch returns no counts rather than a stranger's numbers, Pinterest counts are real integers, board count is a better activity signal, and the tool consumes Apify credits. It doesn't contradict any annotations.

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 a single block of dense but well-organized prose. The return payload is front-loaded, followed by use-case interpretation, then identity risk and operational notes. Every sentence adds either behavioral or operational information; no filler.

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?

For a read-only resolver with no output schema, the description covers what the tool returns, how it behaves on failure, how to skip risks, what auth is required, cost implications, and caching semantics. This is complete enough for an agent to select, invoke, and interpret the result without opening the schema first.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining why supplying company_name improves accuracy, why handles are riskier, why includeFollowerCounts=false is cheaper, and how skipCache behaves with a seven-day cache. This goes beyond the raw schema descriptions by adding decision context.

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 opens with a specific verb-resource pair ('Resolve a company domain to its Pinterest business account') and enumerates exactly what is returned: follower, following, pin, board counts, claimed website, verified merchant status, and last pin date. It also differentiates the tool's identity-check behavior from a naive domain-to-handle guess, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 clearly states read-only usage, requires an APIFY_TOKEN and consumes credits, and explains the recommended input paths: supply a handle to skip discovery or a domain to run full discovery. It does not name sibling tools or explicitly say when not to use it, but the guidance is enough for an agent to decide when to invoke it and what inputs to prefer.

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