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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, open-world behavior, so the description's job is to add context — and it does: it discloses a failure mode (NOT_AVAILABLE on unsupported connections) and a quota consequence ('Counts as browsing'). It doesn't say whether results are paginated or how many places come back, but the important behavioral signals are present.

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 clauses, each carrying distinct information: what it searches, where the result goes, and the availability/quota caveats. No filler and the core purpose is front-loaded.

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 read tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, downstream usage, availability, and quota cost. Only the shape of the result set (list size, ordering) is left implicit, which is a minor gap given the 'id as location' hint.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 50%: 'query' is documented with an example in the schema, while 'account_id' has only a uuid format hint. The description adds no meaning about either input, focusing instead on the output id's destination. That is the baseline for a half-documented two-parameter schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Instagram places matching a name') and ties the result to a concrete downstream action ('to tag in create_post'). An agent can immediately tell this is a name-based place lookup, not a generic search.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives the when-to-use condition (tagging in create_post) and the exact handoff ('pass the id as location'), plus an availability caveat ('NOT_AVAILABLE where the connection does not offer it'). It stops short of naming any alternative lookup path if the result is empty, but the context is otherwise clear.

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