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.