instagram_audio_search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by disclosing a cost of 3 credits and explaining that returned IDs are meant for /v1/audio.

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 plus a cost line, front-loaded with the core purpose and containing no wasted text. The cost statement is separated and easy to scan.

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 search tool with no output schema, the description provides the essential context: what it searches, how to use the results, and the credit cost. It does not cover pagination or result limits, but those are minor gaps for this tool's 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 description coverage is 100%, so the single 'q' parameter is already documented as 'Search text.' The description adds useful semantic detail by specifying that the search text can be a song/sound title or artist name.

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

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

The description states a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('Instagram music and sounds'), and clarifies that results are songs/sounds findable by title or artist. It also distinguishes itself from the related audio-retrieval sibling by noting the returned IDs can be passed to /v1/audio.

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 clear context: use this to find songs and sounds by title or artist, and then pass the resulting IDs to /v1/audio. It does not name explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, but the intended usage is unambiguous.

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