instagram-scraper

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 does mention 'Billing per call: 1 Credits', which is a useful operational detail, but it omits any information about authorization requirements, return format, error behavior, or side effects.

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 run-on sentence that is under-specified rather than concise. It lacks structured information and reads like a fragment, earning no credit for efficient communication.

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 only one parameter, no annotations, and no output schema, the description should clearly state what information is returned or how to interpret the result. It only provides a cost hint and a vague reference to account location, leaving the tool's overall contract unclear.

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 100% description coverage for the single parameter id_user, but the description 'ID User' is extremely sparse. The tool description adds 'user id' but still provides no detail about expected format, whether the ID is numeric or a username, or whether it is required. With the parameter effectively optional (no required fields listed), this lack of semantic clarity is a significant gap.

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 garbled phrase: 'Get Additional Information user id Account Location, account create Billing per call: 1 Credits.' It vaguely suggests retrieving additional user information like account location and creation date, but the wording is fragmented and does not clearly define the tool's purpose. It also fails to distinguish from siblings like get_info or get_info_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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool instead of the many sibling tools such as get_info, get_info_username, or get_user_id. No context or alternatives are mentioned.

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 transparency burden. It adds useful billing information ('1 Credit per call') and recency scope, but omits auth requirements, rate limits, error behavior, and response 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 description is a single, front-loaded sentence that states the action and resource, followed by a concise billing note. There is no filler or redundant explanation.

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 output schema and no annotations, the description is too thin to be fully actionable. It does not define what 'basic engagement statistics' include, what the return payload looks like, or how this tool should be selected among 37 related sibling tools.

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 describes the only parameter 'user' as 'Instagram username', giving 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning or usage syntax beyond what the schema provides.

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 clearly identifies a read operation ('Get') targeting 'basic engagement statistics' for an Instagram user, scoped to 'recent posts'. It is distinct enough from siblings, though it does not specify exactly which metrics count as 'basic engagement'.

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 versus alternatives like get_likes, get_comments, get_info, or get_posts. The only contextual hint is 'based on their recent posts', which implies scope but not exclusions or prerequisites.

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 full burden for behavioral disclosure. It discloses billing cost ('Billing per call: 1 Credits') but omits other relevant behaviors such as whether authentication is required, response format, or potential errors. The 'Get' verb implies read-only, but this is not explicitly stated.

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 and includes only essential information: purpose, target account type, and billing. It is front-loaded and to the point, though the grammar is slightly awkward (missing punctuation between 'phone' and 'Billing'), which prevents a perfect conciseness score.

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 get tool, the description is adequate: it states what is fetched (email, phone), the billing cost, and implies the user ID is the input. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it would benefit from mentioning the response shape or any limitations, and it lacks guidance on how this tool differs from sibling get_info tools, leaving some completeness gaps.

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% (id_user is described as 'User ID'), so the baseline is 3. The description does not add extra semantics beyond the schema, such as format expectations or how the ID relates to a business account. It simply mentions the tool is for business accounts, which applies to the API context rather than the parameter itself.

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 clearly states the tool gets Instagram user info for a Business account, specifically email and phone. The verb 'Get' plus resource 'Instagram user info, Business account' makes the purpose concrete and distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_info or get_info_username by targeting business account contact details.

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 similar get_* siblings, nor any exclusions or preconditions. The description only states what the tool does and billing cost, offering no context for tool 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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'Max - 12 Billing per call: 1 Credits' which is a rate/billing constraint, and that is useful. However, it does not disclose whether this is a read-only operation, whether it returns paginated data, or any side effects. It also does not explain behavior like CORS bypassing, which is mentioned in the schema but not in the description. The description adds minimal contextual behavior beyond the 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, essentially a single sentence plus billing note. It is concise but arguably under-specified. The billing information is arguably redundant or could be placed elsewhere. It is front-loaded but lacks structure like sections or clear separation of purpose vs. usage. It earns a 3 because it is short and to the point, but it misses opportunities to add valuable guidance without being verbose.

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 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient for an agent to understand what the tool does, how to use it, and what to expect. Key missing information: what 'media comments users' actually returns (list of users? comments with user info?), how pagination works, whether shortcode is required, and any limitations. The description is too minimal for a data retrieval tool of moderate complexity. It addresses billing but not functional completeness.

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 100%, so the description does not need to add much. However, the description provides no additional context for parameters (e.g., that 'shortcode' is the media identifier, or how 'end_cursor' is used for pagination). The schema already defines each parameter, but the description adds nothing beyond that. Since coverage is 100%, baseline 3 is appropriate; the description does not hinder parameter understanding but adds no extra value.

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 'Get instagram media comments users' is somewhat vague: it specifies 'Get' and 'comments', but the phrase 'media comments users' is awkward and unclear. It does not clearly distinguish from siblings like get_likes or get_post_info, though 'comments' is a specific resource. It is more than a tautology but lacks a clear statement of what the tool returns (e.g., a list of commenters or comments with users).

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of prerequisites like needing a shortcode, which is a required parameter in practice (though not marked required). No mention of pagination usage or when to use 'sort' options. The description provides 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?

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden for behavioral disclosure. It does disclose a maximum result count and per-call credit cost, but it omits pagination behavior, auth requirements, and response 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 with the main action, and the cost/limit information is included in a compact second sentence. However, the phrasing 'Max - 100 Billing per call: 1 Credits' is awkwardly packed.

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 output schema, no annotations, and 3 unrequired parameters, the description is too sparse to support confident autonomous use. It doesn't explain how to identify the target user, how pagination flows through next_max_id, or what the response contains.

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 covers id_user and next_max_id (67%) with brief descriptions, but the query parameter is undocumented and the description adds no clarification about how query vs id_user should be used. The agent is left guessing which parameter is needed for a basic lookup.

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 clearly states the core function with a specific verb and resource: 'Get instagram user followers.' This distinguishes it from siblings like get_followings by naming followers, though it doesn't explicitly contrast behavior or alternative lookup methods.

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 such as get_followings or get_user_id. The note about max 100 and 1-credit billing is a limit/cost detail, not a usage guideline.

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. It does disclose that there is a maximum of 100 items and a cost of 1 credit, which is useful behavioral context. However, it omits details like authentication requirements, response format, whether it supports pagination (though next_max_id is in schema), or any side effects. Since it adds some disclosure (limit and cost) but not comprehensive, a 3 is appropriate.

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 concise: one sentence with two pieces of essential info (max count and cost). Every word earns its place, and there is no filler or repetition. It is front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 tool has 3 parameters (none required), no output schema, and no annotations. The description is too sparse to understand what the tool returns, how pagination works (despite next_max_id), or what 'query' is for. Given the many sibling tools and the lack of any behavioral detail beyond cost/limit, the description is incomplete for effective agent use.

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 67%, so the baseline is 3. The description itself adds no parameter semantics—it doesn't explain 'query', 'id_user', or 'next_max_id'. However, the schema already documents id_user and next_max_id, leaving only 'query' undocumented. The description does not compensate for that gap, so it stays at 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 states 'Get instagram user Followings' which clearly identifies the action (get) and resource (user followings). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_followers by naming the specific resource. However, it doesn't elaborate on what is returned (e.g., list of usernames) or how it relates to other get_* tools beyond the 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 guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, differences from get_followers, or what scenarios warrant using this tool. The only operational hints are 'Max - 100' and billing, which are not usage guidelines. This is a clear gap.

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 burden for behavioral disclosure. It does disclose a billing cost ('Billing per call: 1 Credits'), which is helpful operational context, but it says nothing about authentication, response format, or limitations. This is moderate but incomplete 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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose and adds the billing detail. Minor punctuation and grammar awkwardness ('id stories' and missing separation before 'Billing') prevent a perfect score, but it is still appropriately compact.

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 two-parameter lookup with full schema coverage, the description is minimally viable and adds the billing note. However, with no output schema and no mention of what the returned stories contain or how this compares to sibling story tools, there are clear gaps. The moderate complexity and rich sibling list make a 3 appropriate.

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%, with each parameter having a basic description ('User ID', 'Stories ID'). The description repeats these identifiers in prose but adds no deeper semantics about formats, constraints, or whether both are required. The high schema coverage keeps this at the baseline of 3.

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 clearly states the tool's action ('Get stories') and identifies the two relevant identifiers ('id stories and id_user'). It is specific about the resource and parameters, but it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from siblings like get_stories or get_get_stories_hd, so it falls short of a 5.

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 instead of alternatives such as get_stories, get_stories_hd, or get_get_stories_hd. There are no exclusions or context cues about which existing story ID and user ID should be supplied or what distinguishes this variant.

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 only mentions a billing cost ('1 Credits') which is useful but not about behavior (e.g., return format, rate limits, what 'HD' implies). The description is too sparse to convey any meaningful 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 one line but includes a typo ('strories' in title) and lacks structure. It is under-specified rather than concise; the sentence does not add valuable information beyond the name. The billing note is useful but the rest 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 tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description is extremely sparse. It does not explain the return structure, any limits, or how HD affects the data. Given the many sibling tools, more context is needed to avoid misuse. The absence of any behavioral notes (e.g., what 'HD' provides) makes it 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 schema description coverage is 100% and both parameters have simple, clear descriptions ('User ID' and 'Stories ID'). The tool description repeats these but adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 applies because the schema handles the semantics adequately.

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 'Get stories by id stories and id_user' which clarifies the inputs, but it does not explain what 'HD' means or how this differs from siblings like get_stories or get_stories_hd. There is no mention of the output format or purpose beyond fetching stories, and it fails to distinguish from very similar tools.

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. Siblings like get_stories and get_stories_hd likely serve similar functions, but the description does not differentiate or suggest when to choose this over those. It also does not mention any prerequisites or context.

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 mentions a billing cost ('1 Credits') and a limit ('Max 50'), which is useful, but it doesn't disclose what the tool returns, whether it's a read-only operation, or any side effects. The description is minimal and doesn't add behavioral context beyond the billing note.

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 (one sentence plus a billing note), which is concise, but it's under-specified. The billing note is useful but the main description is too terse to be helpful. It's not front-loaded with the most critical information; the billing note is arguably secondary.

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 no output schema, no annotations, and a single parameter, the description should explain what 'guides' are and what the tool returns. It doesn't. The billing note is the only extra context. For a tool with 38 siblings, this is 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% (the only parameter 'id_user' is described as 'User ID'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, but since coverage is high, the baseline is 3. The description doesn't clarify whether the ID is a numeric or string format, or if it's required (though required parameters: 0 suggests it's optional).

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 'Get instagram user guides' which identifies the resource (user guides) and the action (get), but it's vague about what 'guides' means in the Instagram context. It doesn't distinguish from siblings like get_info or get_web_profile_info, which could also return user-related data. The purpose is clear enough but lacks 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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With 38 sibling tools, the description provides no context on when 'user guides' is the appropriate choice. The only additional info is a billing note, which is not usage guidance.

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, and the description does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, any side effects, cost implications (though it mentions billing per call, which is not a behavioral transparency detail), or error patterns. The lack of annotation means the description should have provided this, but it didn't.

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 concise but includes an irrelevant billing note ('Billing per call: 1 Credits') that detracts from clarity. Structurally it's a single sentence, but the extra billing info is unnecessary for tool usage.

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 lacks essential context: output format, pagination usage, parameter relationships, and any prerequisites. With no output schema, the description should have explained what the tool returns, but it doesn't. This leaves the agent uncertain about how to interpret results.

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 includes descriptions for all four parameters, but they are vague and potentially confusing. 'tabs' lists valid values; 'hashtag' is just the name; 'next_page' and 'next_max_id' have overlapping and unclear statements. The descriptions do not adequately clarify the parameters' roles.

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 clearly states it searches by hashtag on Instagram, which is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools that search by other criteria. However, it does not mention what the search returns (e.g., post list, metadata), so it's not fully explicit.

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, nor how to handle pagination with next_page and next_max_id. The description is minimal and offers no usage context.

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. It adds billing cost ('1 Credits') and the prerequisite for obtaining the ID, but doesn't describe return format, authentication, or potential errors. For a simple read operation, this is minimal but not misleading.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose. Every sentence adds value: the first defines the operation, the second explains how to get the parameter and the cost. No unnecessary fluff.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the purpose, parameter source, and cost. It could mention what the response contains, but the tool name and purpose make that obvious. Overall, sufficiently complete for its complexity.

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% with a basic 'Highlight ID' description. The description adds valuable provenance information—that the ID comes from the User Highlights tray request—which helps the agent understand the parameter's source and format beyond 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?

The description clearly states the tool retrieves Instagram user highlights by ID, with a specific verb (Get), resource (user highlights), and parameter (id_highlight). It distinguishes from sibling tool get_highlights_tray by indicating this is for a specific highlight ID, not the tray.

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 clear prerequisite context: the id_highlight can be obtained from the 'User Highlights tray' request. This tells the agent when/how to use the tool, though it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it.

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?

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the burden of disclosure. It mentions billing per call (a cost detail), but does not describe any side effects, permissions, rate limits, or return behavior. The 'Get' prefix implies a read operation, but nothing concrete is stated.

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 concise—one sentence stating the action and resource, plus a billing note. It front-loads the key information without any fluff, which is ideal for quick parsing.

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 parameter, no output schema), the description still feels incomplete. It fails to explain what a 'highlights tray' is, lacks usage context, and provides no alternative tool suggestions. The billing note is the only extra detail, leaving many questions unanswered.

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 already fully describes the only parameter (id_user) with 'User ID', so the description doesn't need to add much. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, but since coverage is 100%, a baseline 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 clearly states the action ('Get') and the resource ('instagram user highlights tray'), making the purpose understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_highlights, but the term 'tray' suggests a specific data structure, which is somewhat distinguishing.

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 like get_highlights or get_stories. The description only states the action and billing, with no mention of intended use cases 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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions billing per call (1 credit), which is a useful operational detail, but it does not disclose any other behavioral aspects such as rate limits, data freshness, or whether the info is basic or full. It adds minimal context beyond the function name.

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 and front-loaded with the key purpose. The billing note is an extra fact that may be useful but is somewhat tangential. It is not overly verbose, so it earns a 4 for efficiency, though it could be slightly more 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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description leaves out critical details: what fields are returned, whether it requires authentication, potential error cases, and how it differs from similar tools. For a simple one-parameter tool, it is minimally adequate but not complete for an agent to use confidently.

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 schema already documents the parameter. The description adds no further meaning to the parameter beyond what the schema provides. Baseline of 3 is appropriate. It mentions the billing aspect, but that is not parameter-specific.

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 it gets Instagram user info by id_user, which is a specific verb+resource. However, it does not clarify what specific information is returned, and it is not strongly differentiated from siblings like get_info_username or get_additional_info. The functionality is clear but the scope is vague.

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 others like get_info_username or get_additional_info. The description simply says 'Get Instagram user info by id_user' without stating context or exclusions, so an agent cannot determine when this is the preferred choice.

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?

The description mentions billing ('1 Credits per call'), which is a behavioral trait. However, without annotations, it does not disclose other aspects like side effects, permissions, or whether the operation is read-only. Some transparency is present, but it is minimal.

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 concise, consisting of two short sentences. It provides the essential purpose and billing information without any unnecessary words, making it efficiently structured.

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 simple single-parameter nature and lack of an output schema, the description is functional but incomplete. It does not indicate what information is returned (e.g., followers, bio, posts) or any limitations, leaving some ambiguity about the expected result.

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 covers the single parameter 'user' with a description 'Nickname', which is somewhat vague but aligns with the tool's purpose. The tool description does not add further clarification, so the parameter semantics are adequate but not detailed.

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 clearly states the tool fetches Instagram user info by username, which is a specific verb and resource. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like 'get_user_id' and 'get_web_profile_info' due to the explicit 'by username' wording, though it does not specify what kind of info is returned.

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 such as 'get_user_id' or 'get_web_profile_info'. The description lacks context on scenarios where this tool is preferred, making selection ambiguous.

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 provided, and the description does not mention side effects, rate limits (the 'Billing' text is ambiguous), or what the returned data structure looks like. It is not clear if this is a read-only operation.

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 includes confusing 'Max - 12 Billing per call: 1 Credits.' text that appears unrelated to the function and lacks clarity. It is not well-structured.

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, and the description does not explain what the returned data contains (e.g., list of usernames, user objects). It lacks details on pagination, sorting, or any response format.

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 of 'shortcode' simply restates 'Shortcode' with no additional context about its format, purpose, or how it relates to the media. No added value over 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?

The verb 'Get' and resource 'instagram media likes users' clearly indicate the tool retrieves users who liked a specific media, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_comments or get_followers.

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 alternatives, nor any prerequisites or context. The description is a single line with no usage instructions.

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 bears full disclosure burden. The billing disclosure is genuinely useful behavioral context, but the instruction to 'Use end_cursor to get the rest of the data' references a parameter that does not exist in the schema (actual: max_id, next_page, next_media_ids), producing potentially confusing or misleading guidance about the cursor flow.

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 brief and scannable, but the run-on 'data Billing per call' is missing punctuation, '1 Credits' is ungrammatical, and the HTML <br /> leaks presentational syntax. Short enough to be efficient, but sloppy execution.

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?

No annotations, no output schema, and 4 optional pagination params with no required fields—the description needed to explain the pagination flow (which param feeds the next call) and result semantics, but instead only addressed cost and a phantom cursor. The max_id/next_page/next_media_ids params are clearly copy-pasted from a hashtag template ('viewing the next hashtag list'), suggesting the whole pagination contract is unreliable. Substantial gaps for a moderate-complexity 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3 even without param info in the description. The description adds nothing clarifying parameter usage; in fact, the nonexistent 'end_cursor' reference actively muddies the param story. Net-neutral at 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?

"Get media by location" uses a specific verb+resource+filter that clearly conveys the tool returns media associated with a location. However, with 38 get_* siblings there's zero differentiation from alternatives like get_posts or get_location_search, and the generic phrasing leaves ambiguity about whether this filters or searches by location.

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 absolutely no guidance on when to choose this tool vs. its 38 siblings. The billing note ('Billing per call: 1 Credits') is a cost disclosure, not a usage guideline. For a tool with so many alternatives, this is a complete gap.

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 does mention a per-call credit cost, which is useful, but it omits details about return format, error handling, or any side effects. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotation support.

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 the phrase 'Search location to get id location' is redundant with the tool name, wasting words. The billing note is useful and earns its place, but the overall structure is awkward and under-specified.

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, the description covers the core function and cost, but it lacks details about the response (beyond implying an ID) and does not differentiate from similar search tools. Given no output schema and no annotations, a fuller description would be more helpful.

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 fully documents the single 'name' parameter with a description and example, achieving 100% coverage. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the 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 'Search location to get id location' is essentially a restatement of the tool name and title, adding no new information about the specific scope or behavior. It does not differentiate from sibling tools like get_locations or get_search, making its purpose vague and redundant.

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 versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no contextual clues. The billing note is the only additional information, but it does not help an agent decide when to invoke this tool.

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 add a useful cost signal ("Billing per call: 1 Credits"), but says nothing about what gets returned, URL download semantics, rate limits, or error behavior. Marginal value over the raw name.

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 core sentence is compact, but the appended 'Billing per call: 1 Credits' reads like system-generated metadata awkwardly concatenated rather than deliberate copy. Acceptable, minimally worded, but slightly unpolished—not 'concise' in an intentional way.

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 is a search tool with no output schema and no annotations, so the description must compensate. It fails to explain the shape of the result list, what 'url download' means concretely, or how many results are returned. For a paginated search endpoint, this is insufficient operational context.

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% (2/2 params). 'name' is explained as 'Artist name or music name' and 'next_max_id' has clear pagination semantics, so the schema already does the work. The description adds no new parameter-level information, keeping this at the baseline of 3.

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?

"Search Music and get information/url download" clearly states a specific verb (Search) + resource (Music) + output (information/URL). This meaningfully distinguishes it from generic siblings like get_search and get_info, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with the closely related get_music_trending.

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 or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. With 40+ siblings including get_music_trending, get_search, and get_noCORS, the lack of any pointer toward alternatives is a significant gap for an agent deciding between 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 provided, so the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It only mentions billing cost and does not disclose return format, data scope, side effects, or any operational constraints.

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 and includes the billing cost without extra fluff, but the first sentence largely repeats the tool name and title. It is concise in length yet under-specifies the tool's actual behavior.

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 is a zero-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, so the description needs to explain what the response contains. It does not, leaving the agent without enough context to confidently invoke the tool or interpret its result.

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 zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantic burden for the description to carry. The schema fully covers this aspect by being empty, and the baseline for a no-parameter tool is appropriately high.

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 names a specific resource ('Music Tranding list') with a simple 'Get' verb, but 'Tranding' is a typo and the scope of what counts as trending music is not clarified. It does not distinguish this from the sibling get_music_search or other list-returning tools.

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 about when to use this tool rather than alternatives such as get_music_search or get_basic_engagement. The only additional context is the billing note, which does not help with tool 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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses billing per call (1 credit) and file storage time (6-24h), which is useful. However, it omits response format, error behavior, and any access or rate limitations, making the transparency only partial.

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 concise, with the core purpose and input instruction in two short sentences plus a billing note. The HTML line break is slightly unpolished but does not detract. It earns a high score for efficiency.

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 tool is simple with one parameter, but there is no output schema and no required parameters specified. The description lacks return value details and does not clarify whether url_media is mandatory, leaving important gaps for an agent to invoke the tool confidently.

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's parameter description is minimal ('Url'), but the description adds essential context: the URL should be a direct media link from responses like /post_info/. This meaningfully clarifies the parameter's purpose, though it does not specify URL format or requiredness.

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 clearly states the tool's action: 'Get No CORS Media' and specifies the input as a direct link from /post_info/, etc. This distinguishes it from sibling metadata tools, though the meaning of 'No CORS' and the storage time mention could be more explicit.

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 implies the usage scenario (provide a media URL received from other endpoints) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. This leaves some ambiguity for the agent.

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 burden. It does disclose a behavioral trait by stating 'Billing per call: 1 Credits' and implies a read operation via 'Get', but it omits authentication needs, rate limits, and response 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 only two short sentences and front-loads the core purpose followed by cost information. Every sentence provides useful content with 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 simple read operation with one fully documented parameter, the description is minimally viable for invocation. However, the absence of return format details and lack of differentiation from siblings like get_post_info_v2 create gaps in a large tool family.

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 already fully documents the sole parameter 'shortcode' with an example, so schema coverage is high. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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 uses a specific verb 'Get' and clearly identifies the resource as Instagram Media with URL types /p/, /tv/, and /reel/. However, it does not differentiate this tool from overlapping siblings like get_post_info_v2, get_tv_info, or get_reel.

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 implies usage when you need media information by shortcode, but it provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It also fails to mention alternatives despite many similar 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 provided, so the description carries the burden. It mentions 'Billing per call: 1 Credits', which is useful, but it doesn't disclose other behaviors like rate limits, what 'more data' includes (e.g., comments, likes, insights), or potential errors. The description is minimal.

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 one short sentence plus billing info. It is brief and front-loaded, but it omits critical details like what 'More Data' includes. It earns a 4 for conciseness but loses some for vagueness.

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 a single parameter and no output schema, the description should be more informative about the return content and use cases. It only says 'Media More Data' without specifics, and with no annotations, the agent lacks guidance on behavior. Sibling tools are many, but no comparison is made.

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 'shortcode' is described in schema as 'Shortcode' with an example. The description adds 'Media More Data' context and URL types, which implies the shortcode is for an Instagram post, reel, or TV. With 100% schema coverage and 1 param, the description adds modest value beyond 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?

The description states 'Get instagram Media More Data' and mentions URL types (/p/, /tv/, /reel/), indicating it retrieves more detailed media data. However, it is vague about what 'More Data' includes and how it differs from sibling tools like get_post_info, get_tv_info, or get_reel.

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 vs alternatives. It doesn't specify if it's for posts, reels, TVs, or all, and doesn't mention any prerequisites (e.g., needing a shortcode format). Sibling tools are numerous but no differentiation 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?

It conveys that this is a read operation (get) with a maximum of 12 posts per call, which is a behavioral constraint. The pagination mechanism is described. However, without annotations, it lacks details on authentication, error handling, or what the response includes, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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 brief but poorly structured, running ideas together without clear separation. It could be more readable with proper punctuation or bullet points. Still, it contains no fluff, so it earns a median score.

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 lack of an output schema, the description should explain what the returned posts contain, but it only says 'posts' without detail. It also doesn't mention how to obtain id_user (e.g., via get_user_id) or handle missing users, making it incomplete for a complex Instagram 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 description adds meaning to end_cursor by explaining its role ('to get the rest of the data'), which the schema only vaguely describes as 'for viewing the posts list.' The id_user parameter is already clear. Since schema coverage is 100%, the description still enriches the semantics of end_cursor.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Get Instagram user posts.' It specifies a limit ('Max - 12') and mentions pagination via end_cursor, which defines the scope precisely. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_posts_username by implying a user ID-based approach.

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 actionable guidance: it explains how to get all posts by using end_cursor ('Use end_cursor to get the rest of the data') and mentions billing per call. However, it does not explicitly compare with alternatives or state prerequisites, but the pagination instruction is valuable.

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 supplied, the description exposes the 10-item cap, pagination via end_cursor, and billing cost of 1 credit per call. It does not mention response shape or edge cases, but the key side effects and constraints are disclosed.

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?

Three short sentences carry the purpose, pagination behavior, maximum result count, and billing cost with no filler. The punctuation after 'Max - 10' is slightly loose but does not harm clarity.

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 two-parameter endpoint with no annotations or output schema, the description covers the essential operational details: target, limit, pagination, and cost. A more advanced response description would be nice but is not necessary for basic invocation.

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 documents both 'user' as nickname and 'end_cursor' as the pagination value, and the description reinforces end_cursor's role in retrieving the rest of the data. This is helpful but only modestly goes beyond the structured schema, so a baseline 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 opens with a specific action ('Get Instagram user posts by Username') and the title matches the intended resource. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings such as get_posts or get_reels_posts_username, but the username-based scope is clear.

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 provides clear operational context: fetch posts by username and use end_cursor to page beyond the first 10 results. It does not state alternatives or when not to use it, but the main use case is unambiguous.

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 discloses a per-call billing cost but does not clarify whether the operation is read-only, what side effects exist, authentication prerequisites, or the return format. Significant behavioral details are missing.

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 the second sentence is grammatically awkward, combining login issuance and billing information without clear separation. It could be more streamlined, though it is not excessively verbose.

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 single-parameter tool, the description does not specify what the output actually contains (e.g., list of username suggestions, availability status), how 'free logins' should be interpreted, or the expected format of the 'name' parameter. This leaves important contextual gaps for an agent trying to use 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 for 'name' is misleading, calling it 'Highlight ID' despite the example 'Tom Hardy'. The tool description adds some clarity by mentioning 'name and surname', helping map the parameter to a person's name. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description only partially compensates for the schema's poor semantics.

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 clearly states 'Get Instagram Username Suggestions', identifying the action and resource. However, the subsequent phrase about 'Issues free logins available for registration' introduces ambiguity about the exact output and purpose, preventing a perfect score.

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 explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus siblings like get_info_username or get_user_id. The description implies a registration use case but does not state any 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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It only mentions billing (1 credit per call) but doesn't disclose what the tool returns, whether it's read-only, or any side effects. The billing note is useful but 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 very short and front-loaded with the tool's purpose. The billing note is extra but relevant. No wasted words, though it could be slightly more 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one param, no output schema), the description is minimal but lacks context about what 'Reel Media' includes, how the shortcode is used, or what the response looks like. The billing note is the only extra context.

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% with a single 'shortcode' parameter, and the description doesn't add meaning beyond the schema. The schema already provides the parameter name and example, so the description adds no extra value. Baseline 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 states the tool gets Instagram Reel Media, which is a specific resource, but it doesn't clearly distinguish from sibling tools like get_reels_posts or get_post_info. The verb 'Get' is generic and the resource 'Reel Media' is somewhat vague.

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 alternatives. The description only mentions billing per call, which is not usage guidance. It doesn't explain what 'Reel Media' means or when to prefer this over get_reels_posts.

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. It discloses a per-call limit of 10 and billing cost (1 credit), but it fails to clarify how the 'max_id' parameter relates to 'end_cursor', creating a potential behavioral inconsistency. The description does not reveal other relevant behaviors like error handling or response structure.

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 and front-loaded with the main purpose. It avoids unnecessary fluff, but the phrasing 'Max - 10 Use end_cursor' lacks punctuation and flows awkwardly. Despite this, every piece of information (limit, pagination, cost) is relevant and earns 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 simple list-retrieval tool with no output schema, the description provides essential operational details (limit, pagination, billing) but lacks explicit instructions on how to use 'max_id' for pagination (since it refers to 'end_cursor' instead). It also does not mention what fields are returned, which might be helpful given no output schema is available.

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 a baseline of 3 is appropriate. However, the description introduces 'end_cursor' without mapping it to the actual schema parameter 'max_id', potentially confusing the agent. It adds no extra meaning beyond the schema's own descriptions, and the mismatch reduces clarity.

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 clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('Instagram user reels posts'), but it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like get_reels_posts_username. The mention of 'end_cursor' while the schema uses 'max_id' introduces minor ambiguity, but the core purpose is still clear.

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 a pagination hint ('Use end_cursor to get the rest of the data') but offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_reels_posts_username or get_posts. No exclusions or conditional usage contexts 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?

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses pagination limits (max 10), the use of end_cursor, and billing costs (1 credit), which is useful. However, it omits information about the response format, authentication requirements, or any side effects, leaving coverage incomplete.

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 concise, consisting of two short sentences that immediately state the purpose and key pagination details. There is zero fluff, and all sentences contribute value.

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 tool lacks an output schema, so the description should explain what the response contains. It only mentions pagination and billing, but does not describe the returned data structure, fields, or potential errors. Auth requirements are also absent, making the description insufficient for a tool that returns a list of posts.

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%, with both 'user' and 'max_id' having clear descriptions. The description reinforces the end_cursor concept but adds little beyond the schema—it does not clarify optionality or provide examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema already handles parameter semantics.

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 clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'Instagram user reels posts by Username', making the tool's function unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_posts_username by specifying 'reels', though it doesn't explicitly contrast with get_reels_posts or other variants.

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 pagination guidance ('Max - 10 Use end_cursor') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like get_posts_username or get_reels. There are no exclusions or alternative recommendations, making usage context implied rather than explicit.

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 must carry the full burden. It mentions 'Billing per call: 1 Credits', which hints at cost but doesn't clarify what 'spent status' means, whether it's a read-only check, or any side effects. The term 'spent' is ambiguous.

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 it is also under-specified. 'Checking the spent status' is concise but not informative. The billing note is brief but adds a cost context. It earns a 3 because it's not wasteful, but it doesn't use its brevity well.

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 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should explain what 'spent status' means, what the response looks like, and what the tool is for. It fails to provide any meaningful context, making it essentially a stub.

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 zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%. With no parameters, the description has little to add; the baseline for 0 params is 4. The description does not explain any implicit inputs, but that is acceptable given no params.

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 says 'Checking the spent status' which is vague and tautological with the title 'Checking the spent'. It does not specify what resource is being checked or how it differs from siblings like get_info or get_server.

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. There is no mention of use cases, alternatives, or conditions.

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 provided, so description carries full burden. It doesn't disclose what data is returned, any limitations, or whether it's a search vs direct lookup. Billing mention is non-behavioral. No contradiction.

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?

Extremely short, but the phrasing is garbled and includes irrelevant billing info. It seems under-specified rather than concise. Not front-loaded with useful 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?

A one-param lookup tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no differentiation from siblings. The description fails to clarify what exactly 'Search User' returns and how it differs from get_info_username or get_user_id.

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 has 100% coverage with a simple 'user' param described as 'Nickname' with an example. The description adds no more value. Baseline 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 'Search User to Instagram Billing per call: 1 Credits.' awkwardly conflates the tool's function with billing details. It implies searching a user, but the phrasing is unclear ('to Instagram Billing' is nonsensical). It doesn't clearly state it finds user info, and the sibling tools like get_info_username and get_user_id may serve similar purposes.

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 vs siblings. With many similar get_* tools (get_info, get_info_username, get_user_id), there is zero differentiation. The billing note doesn't help.

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 burden. It says 'Checking' which implies a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly state safety or specify what 'status' means or what the response contains. It does mention billing per call, which is a useful behavioral detail, but lacks disclosure of output structure, error behavior, or side effects.

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 concise: 'Checking the server status Billing per call: 1 Credits.' It front-loads the purpose and adds cost information in a compact manner. There is no filler or redundant text, making it optimally sized.

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 simplicity (no params, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. It tells what the tool does and the cost, but it does not explain what 'status' includes (e.g., uptime, latency, version) or how to interpret results. Since there is no output schema, such details would be valuable for completeness, earning a mid-range score.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema is fully covered by definition. According to the rubric, a 0-parameter tool baselines at 4. The description adds nothing about parameters because there are none, so it neither helps nor hurts.

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 clearly states 'Checking the server status', which is a specific verb and resource. It is distinct from sibling tools like get_business or get_posts, all of which pertain to social media data. This tool is the only one about server status, so its purpose is 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool or alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, scenarios where this is appropriate, or differentiate it from other tools. It simply states what it does without any contextual usage advice.

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. It mentions a billing cost but fails to explain what the tool does with the input, whether it's read-only, or what output to expect. This is minimal transparency beyond the cost.

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 concise, with no redundant information. It front-loads the purpose and includes billing info in a single sentence. While it lacks detail, the conciseness itself is good.

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 how the input is used and what the response contains. It only states 'get similar accounts' without any operational detail, making it incomplete even for a simple 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 100% with the parameter 'id_user' described as 'User ID'. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score 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 clearly states the tool's function: retrieving similar Instagram accounts. It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning 'similar accounts,' which no other tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly link to the user ID input, though the schema covers that.

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 versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. It only mentions billing cost, which is not usage guidance.

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 for behavioral disclosure. It mentions cost ('Billing per call: 1 Credits') and implies a read operation via 'Get', but does not disclose output format, required parameters, limitations, or distinctions from story variants.

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 sentence with the core purpose front-loaded. The billing clause is brief and relevant, though slightly awkwardly placed.

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 large set of sibling tools, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is too thin for full contextual understanding. It fails to clarify regular vs HD stories, whether id_user is required, or what the response contains.

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%, and the schema already documents id_user as 'User ID'. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('instagram user stories'), which is specific and understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like get_stories_hd, but the resource is identifiable enough to avoid being 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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_stories_hd or get_get_stories. The billing note provides cost context, not usage selection context.

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 provided, so description carries burden. It only discloses billing credit usage but doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs, or data volume. Does not describe behavior beyond fetching stories; lacks information on potential failure modes or return format specifics.

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, one sentence with two fragments. It is concise but misses crucial context like output details or usage scenarios. The billing note is useful but structure is not optimal; lacks logical order or emphasis on important behavioral info.

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, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is inadequate. It doesn't mention what the response looks like, how HD differs, or any prerequisites. The billing info is there but that's minimal. It is not complete enough for an agent to know what to expect.

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% for the only parameter 'id_user' with description 'User ID', which is clear. The description adds no extra meaning beyond billing, so it doesn't enhance the parameter understanding. Baseline 3 is appropriate since schema fully describes the parameter.

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 it gets Instagram user stories in HD format and mentions billing. Purpose is clear but there is no differentiation from sibling tools like 'get_stories' and 'get_get_stories_hd'. It lacks specificity about what 'HD Format' means in terms of output or difference from non-HD version.

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 alternatives like 'get_stories' or 'get_get_stories'. The billing note implies a cost, but doesn't explain if HD is preferable or when to choose this over other story tools. Sibling tools suggest similar capabilities without explicit distinctions.

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 and minimal description, there is no disclosure of behavior such as return format, pagination, rate limits, or side effects. The 'Max 50 Billing per call: 1 Credits' is cryptic—unclear if 50 is a result limit or cost. The description fails to explain what the tool does operationally, relying entirely on the name.

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 to the point, avoiding unnecessary words. It front-loads the purpose and includes a cost note. However, it may be too terse, bordering on under-specification rather than concise over-specification.

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 no output schema and only two optional parameters, the description should explain what the response contains and how end_cursor is used. It does neither, leaving agents with incomplete understanding. The billing note does not compensate for missing behavioral details.

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 descriptions are basic ('User ID' and 'End Cursor') but cover both parameters. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Since schema coverage is 100%, the description not adding value keeps it at the baseline of 3.

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 instagram user tagged.' It clearly indicates the tool retrieves tagged content for a user, distinguishing it from generic 'get_posts' or 'get_info' tools. However, it lacks detail on what exactly constitutes 'tagged' (e.g., tagged posts, tagged media), making it slightly ambiguous but still purpose-driven.

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 description only mentions billing limits ('Max 50 Billing per call: 1 Credits') and does not explain use cases, prerequisites, or alternatives. Agents have no contextual direction.

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 only discloses the billing cost ('1 Credits') and the word 'Get' implies a read operation, but it omits auth needs, response format, rate limits, or other 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 a single short sentence that puts the key action and resource first, then adds billing info. There is no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 tool is simple with one optional parameter and no output schema, so a short description can be adequate. However, the lack of usage differentiation among the many tv-related siblings and the absence of behavioral details make it only minimally 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 100% for the single shortcode parameter, so the schema already documents the parameter. The description adds only that the resource is IGTV media and does not explain shortcode format, source location, or how it relates to the return value.

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?

Description starts with 'Get instagram IGTV Media', which is a specific verb and resource. However, with sibling tools like get_tv_posts and get_tv_posts_username, it does not clarify that this fetches a single IGTV item by shortcode, so no sibling differentiation is provided.

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 versus the many related sibling tools. The shortcode parameter implies a single-item lookup, but the description never says 'use this when you have a shortcode' or contrasts it with get_tv_posts/get_tv_posts_username.

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 disclose useful non-obvious traits: the per-call limit of 10 items and the billing cost of 1 credit. However, it omits auth requirements, output format, and error behavior, leaving notable gaps.

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 concise and front-loaded with purpose, followed by operational details. The phrasing is somewhat telegraphic ('Max - 10', 'Billing per call: 1 Credits'), but each sentence serves a clear function and there is no wasted text.

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 two-parameter tool, the description covers the essentials: purpose, pagination, and billing. However, there is no output schema and no annotations, so the description would benefit from at least a brief note on return contents or whether the user parameter is required.

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%, which sets the baseline at 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining that end_cursor is used to fetch the remaining posts after the 10-post limit, which is useful behavioral context for parameter 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 description clearly states the tool's function ('Get Instagram user tv posts') with a specific verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool get_tv_posts_username or clarify that the 'user' parameter is a user ID, so it stops short of a 5.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_tv_posts_username or get_posts. The only usage instruction is about pagination ('Max - 10 Use end_cursor to get the rest of the data'), which helps after the tool is selected, not during 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 must disclose behavioral details. It mentions a maximum of 10 items and a billing cost per call, which is useful. However, it does not disclose potential error conditions, rate limits, or the exact structure of the response, leaving some behavioral aspects unspecified.

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 brief and front-loaded with the core purpose. However, the phrasing is slightly run-on and lacks proper punctuation, making it less polished. Still, it conveys the essential information efficiently.

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 that there is no output schema, the description should explain what data is returned. It mentions pagination and limits but does not describe the response fields or structure, leaving some ambiguity. While acceptable for a simple listing tool, it could be more explicit about the content of the response.

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 describes both parameters adequately, but the description adds valuable context by stating the 10-item limit and clarifying that end_cursor is used to fetch more data. This goes beyond the schema's terse descriptions and helps the agent understand parameter 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 description clearly states it retrieves TV posts for a given username, specifying 'tv posts' and 'by Username', which distinguishes it from general post tools. It also mentions pagination and limits, clarifying its scope. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like get_posts_username or get_tv_posts, so it lacks full differentiation.

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 only a hint about using end_cursor for pagination but offers no guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternaptives such as get_posts_username or get_tv_posts. It lacks any exclusions, prerequisites, or best practices for selecting this tool.

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 full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It only states the operation fetches an ID, without mentioning side effects, error handling, rate limits, or whether it's read-only. This leaves significant behavioral uncertainty.

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 contains repetition: 'Get Instagram user id' appears twice, separated by a pipe, and the billing note is awkwardly appended. This redundancy and lack of clear structure detract from clarity, making it less concise than it should be.

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 provides the core purpose and billing info but omits return format, potential outputs, and any conditions or limitations. Given the tool's simplicity, more context (e.g., typical usage or return type) would improve completeness.

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 defines the parameter 'user' as a nickname, and the description adds no further clarification. Since the schema covers the meaning fully, the baseline score of 3 applies; the description doesn't enhance parameter understanding.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves the Instagram user ID, making its purpose explicit. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools that fetch other types of data (e.g., info, posts) by specifying 'user id'.

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 mentions billing per call but provides no guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives like get_info or get_username. It lacks context about prerequisites or typical use cases, leaving the agent to infer from the parameter name alone.

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 must carry behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'Billing per call: 1 Credits' which is a cost note, but provides no information on safety, side effects, or return behavior. Minimal transparency beyond the billing aspect.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the purpose. It includes billing info inline, which is somewhat abrupt but still concise and readable. No wasted words.

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 many sibling tools and absence of output schema or annotations, the description is minimal. It does not clarify what 'web profile info' entails or how it differs from similar tools like 'get_info_username'. This could confuse agents when selecting among alternatives.

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% and the single parameter 'user' is described as 'Nickname'. The description echoes this with 'by username', adding no new semantic meaning. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema already documents the parameter completely.

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?

Clear verb+resource: 'Get Instagram user Web Profile Info by username'. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like 'get_info_username' or 'get_posts_username', relying on the term 'Web Profile Info' which could be 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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies a purpose but does not specify conditions, exclusions, or mention of sibling tools. It is the user's responsibility to infer usage.

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