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

Goes well beyond the readOnly/openWorld annotations: it discloses coverage limits (sampled Instagram frames only for clips up to two minutes, no spoken transcript) and an injection-defense posture (source content and images are untrusted data, never instructions) that materially changes how an agent should treat the output. It also sets a non-retry policy on failure, matching the non-idempotent hint.

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?

Purpose and coverage limits are front-loaded, and every sentence carries actionable content. It is dense and drifts into multi-clause agent-behavior coaching (uncertainty, ambiguity, retry policy) that could be tightened, but nothing is genuinely redundant.

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 so return values need no explanation; what the description must cover — input class, coverage limits, trust posture, ambiguity handling, downstream routing, and failure behavior — is all present. An agent can call this correctly on the first try.

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 50%: the url parameter is already fully documented in the schema and the description only echoes its accepted sources. The locale parameter (enum en/es, default en) is never mentioned in the description, so it adds no meaning beyond the enum itself. Adequate but the gap is left to the schema.

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 (retrieve) and precise resource (the link's caption, location tag, available images) scoped to a specific input class (public Instagram Reel/post, TikTok, YouTube video/Short). It also implicitly separates itself from the retrieval siblings by naming search_properties, get_stay_areas and search_nearby_properties as the downstream steps.

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 an explicit trigger condition (a traveler shares a public social link and wants to visit or stay nearby), explicit exclusions (do not use to locate people or private homes), named alternatives with the routing order (search_properties or get_stay_areas + search_nearby_properties), and failure guidance (ask for a caption/screenshot, do not retry).

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