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.