instagram

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention whether the tool is read-only, any side effects, rate limits, authentication needs, or what data is returned. The only extra info is billing cost, which is irrelevant to behavior.

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 extremely short, but this is not conciseness; it is under-specification. The first sentence merely repeats the title, and the remaining text is non-functional metadata. A concise description would provide essential information in few words; here, critical details are missing entirely.

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?

Given the absence of annotations, output schema, and parameter descriptions, the tool is severely under-documented. The description provides no information about return values, errors, or use cases, making it impossible for an agent to decide when and how to invoke this tool correctly.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not elaborate on the 'username' parameter beyond its name. There is no explanation of expected format, constraints, or its role in the request. The parameter is left entirely to the agent's inference.

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 essentially restates the tool name and title ('User Details (by username)') without adding a verb or specifying what the tool does. It provides no functional explanation beyond the inherent meaning of the name, making it a tautology. Additional metadata (Group, Billing) does not clarify purpose.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools (e.g., get_v2_user_details_by_username, get_v3_user_details_by_username, get_v4_user_details_by_username), there is no differentiation or context about which version to select, nor any mention of prerequisites or exclusions.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only mentions billing credits. It does not state whether the operation is read-only, how pagination works, rate limits, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a tool that fetches user posts.

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 short, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. It includes a group label and billing cost, but these are metadata, not meaningful tool guidance. The core description is a restatement of the title, providing no actionable content.

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?

Given the tool has 2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and multiple siblings, the description is woefully incomplete. It lacks any information about return value, pagination behavior, or usage context. This is completely inadequate for an agent to correctly select and invoke the tool.

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 0% and the description does not explain the parameters at all. The schema shows 'username' and 'pagination_token' with only an example for username, but no meaning or usage is added. The description fails to clarify what pagination_token controls or how it should be used.

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 is a tautology, essentially restating the title 'User Posts (by username)' without an explicit verb or explanation of what the tool does. It does not specify an action like 'retrieve' or 'list', making the purpose vague and unhelpful beyond the tool name itself.

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?

No usage guidance is provided. There is no mention of when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools (e.g., get_v2_user_posts, get_v4_user_posts), nor any exclusions or alternative suggestions. The description gives no context for selection.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It gives no information about whether the tool is read-only, what output to expect, potential side effects, or any limitations. Simply mentioning billing cost does not contribute to behavioral transparency.

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 text is extremely short, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. It includes irrelevant metadata (Group and Billing) that does not help an agent understand the tool's function. Every sentence should add value; here only the name repetition is informational, and even that is 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?

For a simple getter with one parameter and no output schema, the description still fails to explain what the tool returns or when to use it. There is no mention of response structure, pagination, or any useful behavioral detail. The description is almost entirely uninformative, making it insufficient for an agent to correctly select and invoke this tool.

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?

The only parameter, 'username', is self-explanatory from its name and example, but the description adds no additional meaning or context. With schema description coverage at 0%, the description does not compensate for the lack of detail, though the parameter is trivial and its purpose is clear from the tool name.

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 'User Stories (by username)' essentially restates the tool name without a verb or action. It does not explicitly state that the tool retrieves stories for a given username, and the additional 'Group: User. Billing per call: 1 Credits.' is about category and cost, not function. This is a tautology, indistinguishable from the title.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools (e.g., get_user_posts_by_username, get_v2_user_stories). The description lacks any context about intended scenarios, prerequisites, or distinctions from alternatives.

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

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

No behavior is described beyond a mention of billing and deprecation. There is no indication of side effects, read-only nature, permissions, or what the response might contain. The description adds no transparency beyond the minimal schema.

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 extremely short and not verbose, but it lacks substantive content. It is concise to the point of being uninformative, failing to provide necessary details in a structured manner.

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?

The description is incomplete for a deprecated endpoint. It does not explain deprecation implications, suggest alternatives (e.g., newer v4 endpoints), or provide any context that would help a user decide whether to invoke this tool. It is missing critical information for effective usage.

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?

The schema itself provides descriptions for both parameters (max_id as 'Cursor token' and location_id as 'Facebook/Instagram Location ID' with an example and hint). The tool description adds no extra meaning, but since schema coverage is 100%, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 only states 'Location Posts Group: Deprecated Endpoints' without explicitly stating that the tool retrieves posts for a given location. The title implies the purpose, but the description is vague and does not clearly define the tool's function.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool, and mentions deprecation without explaining alternatives or recommending against usage. There is no context for appropriate scenarios or comparisons to sibling tools.

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

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does disclose that the endpoint is deprecated and that billing is 1 credit per call, but it does not state whether this is a read operation, what it returns, or any side effects or requirements. This is minimal behavioral context.

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 very short, but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. It repeats the title and includes billing/deprecation metadata, while omitting essential semantic content. Not every sentence earns its place because the first phrase duplicates the title.

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 one-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description still fails to state the tool's purpose, usage context, or expected behavior. The only substantive context is deprecation and billing, which is insufficient for an agent to confidently select and invoke this tool.

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 0%, and the description never mentions the 'shortcode' parameter. The schema provides a title and example, but the description adds no additional meaning. With low coverage, the description was expected to compensate, and it completely fails to do so.

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 is essentially 'v2 / Post Details by Shortcode', which restates the tool name and title without a verb or explicit action. It identifies the resource but does not clearly say that the tool retrieves post details. The added deprecation and billing metadata does not clarify purpose.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The phrase 'Deprecated Endpoints' implies it is legacy, but it does not name any replacement tools or explain under what conditions it should still be used. Sibling tools are not referenced.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose two relevant behavioral facts: this endpoint is deprecated and costs 1 credit per call. However, it does not describe result scope, read-only behavior, default behavior when parameters are empty, or any access/authentication concerns.

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 text is short and front-loaded, which is good, but much of it repeats the title ('v2 / Search Group'). The deprecation and cost information are useful, but they are only a superficial description of a non-trivial tool.

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?

This tool has no annotations, no output schema, and many closely-related sibling tools, so a very short description is inadequate. The description provides some context via deprecation and billing, but it fails to convey what the agent should expect from the tool or when it should call it.

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?

The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the input schema. With schema description coverage at 50%, the query parameter in particular lacks explanation, and the description does not compensate by explaining how 'query' and 'context' interact or what values are expected.

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 is essentially a label: 'v2 / Search Group: Deprecated Endpoints.' It does not state what the tool actually does, such as 'searches posts/users' or anything with a clear verb+resource. The tool title and name already suggest 'search', but the description adds no meaningful functional specificity.

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 guidance on when to use this tool or why it might be preferred over other endpoints. The description says it is deprecated but does not suggest alternatives from the many sibling tools, and it does not explain whether this endpoint should still be considered a general search option.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure, but it only adds 'Deprecated' and 'Billing per call: 1 Credits'. It fails to explain what 'deprecated' means here (still functional? requires special flag?), pagination behavior, or error conditions. The deprecation and billing notes are the only behaviorally relevant hints.

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?

No wasted words — the description is extremely brief with two short sentences. However, this reads as under-specification rather than deliberate conciseness. There's no front-loading concern given the trivial length, but the brevity stems from being a stub, not from efficient writing.

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 deprecated tool with two simple parameters, the surface area is small, but the description is still inadequate: it omits what the endpoint returns, the impact of deprecation, and any usage expectations. Given the tool may still be in use (billing applies), more context about the deprecation consequence would make this complete.

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?

The description adds zero information about parameters. With only 50% schema description coverage and the description providing no compensation (no mention of cursor tokens, tag format, or 'without #' guidance), the two parameters remain undocumented in the description. The schema's own titles/examples do the minimal work here.

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 restates the tool name ('v2 / Tag Posts') and labels it a 'Group: Deprecated Endpoints' without stating what the tool actually does (fetch posts by tag, presumably). It's essentially a tautology of the name with no verb+resource statement, and it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools that could also fetch posts by various criteria.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool over siblings like get_v2_search or get_v2_user_posts. The only usage signal, 'Deprecated', is more of a caution flag than guidance. No alternatives, prerequisites, or contextual hints are given.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It only reveals that the endpoint is deprecated and costs 1 credit per call, but it does not describe read-only semantics, error behavior, auth requirements, pagination, or return shape.

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 text is short and front-loaded, but most of it redundantly repeats the tool name/title. It is under-specified rather than economically concise, providing no substantive content to justify its brevity.

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 annotations, no output schema, and a deprecated endpoint, the definition is materially incomplete. An agent cannot determine what the call returns, what to pass, or when to prefer this over alternatives; only deprecation status and billing are provided.

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 0%, and the description does not mention user_id, its format, whether it is required, or how it maps to a user. The schema provides a title and example, but the description adds no parameter-level meaning.

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 only restates the tool name/title as 'v2 / User Details by ID' and adds lifecycle/billing metadata. It lacks an explicit verb or functional statement like 'Retrieves the user details for the specified user_id,' so the agent must infer the action from the tool name.

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?

No clear when-to-use guidance is provided. The only hint is 'Deprecated Endpoints,' which implies newer endpoints might be preferable, but it does not name alternatives or state exclusions despite many sibling v3/v4 user-detail tools being available.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only states the endpoint group and billing cost; it does not describe authentication needs, response shape, rate limits, or any side effects. 'Deprecated' is the only behavioral hint, and it is insufficient.

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 extremely short, but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. It merely restates the title and adds a group label and billing note, offering little substantive content to justify its place.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should explain return values, deprecation implications, and how it differs from the many sibling user-detail endpoints. It does none of this, leaving the agent with almost no contextual grounding.

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 0%, and the description does not mention the 'username' parameter at all. The schema provides only a title and example, so the description adds no semantic value to help the agent understand parameter format, constraints, or usage.

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 name and title clearly indicate the tool retrieves user details by username, and the description labels it as part of Deprecated Endpoints. However, it does not distinguish this v2 endpoint from the many sibling tools like get_user_details_by_username, get_v3_user_details_by_username, or get_v4_user_details_by_username.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The 'Deprecated Endpoints' label implies it may be outdated, but there is no explicit recommendation, exclusion, or mention of a preferred sibling endpoint.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions billing (1 credit) and deprecation, but omits behavior, authentication needs, rate limits, or return format. These sparse cues provide minimal transparency.

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 extremely short, but brevity results from omitting essential information rather than from focused writing. Every element restates the title or conveys billing metadata, which is not true conciseness.

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 deprecated endpoint, this description is critically incomplete. It provides no migration path, return value documentation, or authentication details, and without an output schema, users remain entirely in the dark about expected behavior.

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?

The schema contains a single 'user_id' parameter with an example and title, but the description adds zero semantic detail about the parameter, its format, or relationships. With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving the parameter's purpose ambiguous.

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 merely restates the tool name 'v2 / User Following Hashtags' and appends 'Deprecated Endpoints' and billing information. It does not explain what the tool does (e.g., retrieve hashtags a user follows), which is a tautological restatement of the title rather than a clear functional purpose.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus sibling tools like get_user_posts_by_username or get_v2_search. The only contextual clue is 'Deprecated Endpoints', but it does not direct users to alternatives or specify appropriate use cases.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It only provides billing and deprecation facts, with no mention of return values, side effects, authentication, or other operational behavior.

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 extremely short but not effectively concise. It includes billing and deprecation metadata but omits essential functional details, making it under-specified rather than concise.

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?

Given no output schema, no annotations, and a minimal description, the tool is severely under-documented. An agent would not know what to expect as a response or how to correctly invoke the tool beyond basic parameter names.

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 67% (two of three parameters have descriptions), but the tool description itself adds no parameter context. It does not clarify the meaning of 'user_id', 'cursor', or 'count' beyond what the schema already states.

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 labels the tool as 'v2 / User Posts Group' and notes it's deprecated, but never explicitly states that it retrieves user posts. The verb and resource are implied by the tool name rather than described, leaving the purpose ambiguous.

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?

No guidance is given for when to use this tool versus alternatives. The deprecation note is mentioned but no alternative endpoints are suggested, so the agent is left without direction on whether to use this or a newer version.

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

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

With no annotations, the description supplies deprecation status and per-call credit cost, but it fails to disclose core behavior such as pagination, auth requirements, return shape, or what 'tagged posts' means. This leaves the agent without an operational safety or outcome profile.

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 text is very short and easy to parse, and the billing/deprecation metadata is compact. However, most of the content repeats the title, so it is under-specified rather than efficiently informative.

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 three-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain what the endpoint returns, how the cursor works, and how it relates to user posts. It only provides lifecycle/cost metadata, leaving the definition incomplete.

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?

The description adds no parameter-level meaning; count and cursor already have schema descriptions, and user_id only has a title and example. Since schema coverage is 67%, the description's silence does not compensate for user_id's missing semantic description.

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 only restates the title 'v2 / User Tagged Posts Group' and adds billing/deprecation metadata; it does not state an action such as 'list posts in which a user has been tagged.' This makes it hard to distinguish from sibling tools like get_v2_user_posts or get_user_posts_by_username.

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?

No when-to-use guidance is provided, and no alternative tools are mentioned. 'Deprecated Endpoints' hints that use should be avoided but does not say what to use instead.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral transparency. It only repeats the name and mentions deprecated status and billing. It does not disclose what data is returned, side effects, required permissions, rate limits, or error behavior. The 'Deprecated' label is a minor behavioral hint but does not compensate for the near-total lack of information.

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?

While extremely short, the description is an example of under-specification rather than effective conciseness. The first phrase merely repeats the tool name, and the remaining text consists of a group label and billing info. The content does not earn its place as it adds minimal value beyond the structured metadata.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (deprecated status, many similar siblings, no output schema), the description is severely incomplete. It provides no information about return values, usage context, authentication, or limitations. This is highly inadequate for an agent to invoke the tool correctly or understand its behavior.

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?

There is one parameter, 'username', but the description provides 0% schema coverage. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema's property name and example. Since schema description coverage is low (0%), the description was required to compensate, and it completely fails to do so.

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 'User Details by Username (more detailed)' essentially restates the tool name and title. It does not clarify what 'more detailed' means, nor does it distinguish this tool from its many siblings like get_v3_user_details_by_username or get_v4_user_details_by_username. The verb 'get' is implied but the core purpose is not expanded beyond the title, making it largely tautological.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The only contextual information, 'Group: Deprecated Endpoints' and 'Billing per call', does not help an agent decide between this and the similar sibling tools. There is no mention of use cases, exclusions, or alternatives, so it earns a 'no guidance' score.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of transparency. It fails to disclose expected behavior, return format, potential errors, authentication requirements, or side effects. The only additional info is billing cost and deprecation, which are not behavioral traits.

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 extremely short, but brevity does not equal conciseness here. Every sentence (or fragment) adds no meaningful value—it merely repeats 'User Details by ID' and states deprecation/billing, which could be inferred from annotations or schema. It lacks structure and fails to front-load any useful information.

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?

Given the tool has only one parameter and no output schema, a clear functional description is essential. The description completely omits what the tool does and returns. It is inadequate for an agent to select or invoke this tool correctly without external knowledge.

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?

The schema has a single 'id' parameter with 0% description coverage, and the description adds no explanation of what 'id' represents or how to construct it. While the parameter name is self-explanatory, the description does not compensate for the missing schema documentation. Even basic details like format or constraints are absent.

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 merely restates the title and adds a group label ('User Details by ID Group') and a deprecation notice. It does not specify that the tool retrieves user details for a given ID, nor does it distinguish this from siblings like get_user_details_by_username or get_v4_user_details_by_username. The purpose is effectively a tautology.

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?

The deprecation notice implies the tool should be avoided, but no alternative endpoints are mentioned. There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus newer/deprecated alternatives, and no context about typical use cases or prerequisites. Only a vague 'deprecated' flag is provided.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosure and falls short. It does add some useful behavioral context: the endpoint is deprecated and costs 1 credit per call. However, it fails to mention what happens when called (does it still work?), error behavior, rate limits, or any migration path — leaving the deprecation risk unaddressed.

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 short and skimmable at three fragments, with billing and deprecation information earning their place. However, the leading clause 'User Details By Username' wastes valuable position restating the tool name. It is minimally concise but not efficiently informative.

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 simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the completeness bar is low, and the description includes deprecation status and cost, which is more than nothing. However, a deprecated endpoint that fails to recommend a successor is a significant gap — an agent has no idea whether v4 is a drop-in replacement or whether to fall back to id-based lookups.

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 0%, and the description adds no information about the username parameter. The schema's own title ('Instagram username') and example ('leomessi') do the heavy lifting. Given the parameter is trivially self-explanatory, the impact is modest, but the description contributes zero value here.

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 the purpose ('User Details By Username') which clearly maps to fetching user details by username, and the name itself is self-explanatory. However, it is largely tautological — it simply restates the tool name rather than explaining what 'details' means or how it differs from siblings. It does add the deprecation note, which is the most informative signal.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use v3 versus the many siblings like get_v2_user_details_by_username, get_v3_1_user_details_by_username, or get_v4_user_details_by_username. The 'Deprecated Endpoints' flag is an implicit warning to avoid this version, but no alternative is named. No when/when-not or prerequisite information is given.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It discloses that the endpoint is deprecated and mentions billing, but does not describe the return format, any side effects, or restrictions. This minimal transparency is insufficient for effective agent use.

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 extremely short, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. It lacks substantive content and does not efficiently convey necessary information.

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 many similarly named sibling tools and no output schema, the description must clarify scope and differences. It fails entirely, leaving the agent to guess about deprecation status, data returned, and usage constraints.

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?

The input schema has one parameter 'id' with an example, but the description provides no additional meaning. Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description does nothing to clarify what values are expected or how they are used.

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 reads 'User Stories Group: Deprecated Endpoints.' This names the resource category but does not explicitly state the tool fetches user stories. It is not a tautology since the name itself conveys more, but the description adds little clarity and fails to distinguish the specific action.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like get_user_stories_by_username or get_v4_user_stories. No mention of contexts, exclusions, or alternatives.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it includes none—no mention of side effects, errors, limitations, or expected behavior of a deprecated endpoint. The only addition is billing information, which is not behavioral.

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 extremely brief, but brevity is not conciseness here—it is under-specification. The lone sentence provides no actionable information, and the format lacks any front-loaded purpose statement.

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 tool with two parameters and no annotations, output schema, or sibling differentiation, this description is completely inadequate. Even for a simple endpoint, a basic description of what it retrieves and any deprecation caveats is essential.

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 0%, and the description does not explain the meaning or usage of maxId or username. It adds zero value beyond the schema's bare field definitions.

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 only states 'v4.1 / user-posts' and 'Group: Deprecated Endpoints.' It does not state what the tool does (e.g., retrieve user posts). It essentially restates the tool name with a deprecation note, offering no differentiation from sibling tools like get_v4_user_posts or get_user_posts_by_username.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives. While 'Deprecated' implies it should be avoided, no alternative is suggested, and there is no context for using it in any scenario.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions billing and deprecation group, but does not explain what the call returns, side effects, authentication needs, or behavior of a deprecated endpoint.

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 very short but consists mostly of title repetition and metadata. The deprecation and billing sentences do not earn their place because they do not explain the tool's function.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, a modest description would suffice, but this one fails to state basic purpose or return behavior. With many sibling story/highlight tools, an agent cannot correctly select or invoke this endpoint from the description alone.

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?

The schema already fully documents the single parameter highlight_id with a description and example. The tool description adds nothing beyond the schema, so the high schema coverage keeps the score at the baseline.

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 only restates the endpoint name and labeling it as part of 'Deprecated Endpoints'; it lacks any explicit verb or outcome. It does not distinguish this tool from sibling tools like get_v4_user_highlights or get_v4_user_stories.

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 guidance on when to use this tool or when to prefer alternatives. The word 'Deprecated' implies it should be avoided, but no replacement or non-use condition is provided.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It fails to explain what the endpoint does, what it returns, or what the deprecation means. The only behavioral trait disclosed is that it is deprecated. The billing note 'Billing per call: 1 Credits' is present but trivial and applies to likely all tools in this family.

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 extremely short, which is concise but not effectively so. However, the scarce number of characters comes from the summary being mostly uninformative jargon rather than distilled helpfulness.

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?

Given the complexity of having multiple versioned siblings (v2, v3, v3_1, v4) and the deprecation flag, this description does not help an agent understand the context. It lacks the deprecation specifics, differences from siblings, or what the v4 endpoint offers over others.

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 covers 0% of the description. The lone parameter 'username' is obvious from the tool name and schema, but the description adds nothing about the format, values, or semantics beyond what the parameter name implies.

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 is essentially a tautology: 'v4 / user-details-by-username Group: Deprecated Endpoints.' It repeats the tool's name and provides a group label ('Deprecated Endpoints') but does not state what the tool actually does (i.e., fetch user details by username). The title restates the tool name, and the description adds no behavioral detail.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus siblings. The 'Deprecated Endpoints' group label is a weak signal (suggesting it should probably be avoided in favor of a newer version), but there is no explicit alternative named, and no when-to-use context is given.

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

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral information. It adds deprecation status and billing cost, but lacks any detail on returned data, required auth, limitations, or error behavior, so it is not transparent enough.

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 text is brief but under-specified, and the opening 'v4 / user-highlights' repeats the title without adding value. The deprecation and billing notes are useful, but the overall description is not well formed.

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?

Given no output schema, no annotations, and a vague description, an agent cannot understand what the tool returns, when to call it, or what the parameter means. This is far from complete.

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 0%; the description does not mention user_id or clarify whether it is required. It adds no meaning beyond the schema's bare field title and example.

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 merely restates the title as 'v4 / user-highlights' and provides a group label. There is no verb or explicit statement of what the tool retrieves, and it does not differentiate from similar siblings like get_v4_highlight_stories or get_v4_user_stories.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool or which sibling to prefer. 'Group: Deprecated Endpoints' hints at lifecycle status but does not name alternatives or explain selection criteria.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions deprecation and billing cost, which are meta-attributes rather than behavioral traits like side effects, permissions, or response behavior. The description does not even say what the tool does, so no meaningful behavioral transparency is provided.

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 short, but it is under-specified rather than concise. It repeats the title and adds trivial group/billing details without including essential functional information. A concise description should pack more substance into fewer words; this one simply omits needed content.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description is still incomplete. It fails to state the tool's purpose or return value, and its deprecation note is unhelpful without a recommended alternative. The agent is left unable to correctly understand or invoke the tool.

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 0%, and the description makes no mention of the username parameter. The schema offers an example, but it lacks any explanation of what the parameter represents, its optionality, or how to use it. The description adds zero value beyond the schema's bare structure.

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 is essentially the title 'v4 / user-posts' with a deprecation note and billing info. It does not state that the tool retrieves posts for a user, nor does it distinguish it from siblings like get_user_posts_by_username. This is a tautology that restates the name/title without providing functional clarity.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives. Although the description notes the endpoint is deprecated, it does not suggest a preferred replacement (e.g., get_v4_1_user_posts), leaving the agent without any selection criteria among the many sibling tools.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does mention the endpoint is deprecated and costs 1 credit per call, which adds some context, but it fails to describe the tool's actual behavior, return format, or any implications of using a deprecated endpoint.

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 short, but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. It omits critical information about the tool's purpose and behavior, so the brevity does not serve the agent.

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?

Given the tool's simple schema (one optional param), lack of annotations, and no output schema, a complete description should explain what the tool does, what it returns, and how it relates to sibling tools. This description only delivers a title and deprecation/billing notes, leaving the agent without adequate information to invoke it correctly.

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?

The schema_description_coverage is 0% and the description does not mention the 'username' parameter at all. The schema itself only provides an example ('cristiano'), so the description adds no semantic meaning beyond the property name.

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 merely restates the title 'v4 / user-stories' and adds only deprecation/billing metadata. It does not state a clear verb or what resource is retrieved, and it fails to distinguish from siblings like get_user_stories_by_username or get_v3_user_stories.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The note 'Deprecated Endpoints' implies it should be avoided, but no alternative is suggested, and no context is given for appropriate use.

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