instagram_search

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

With readOnlyHint and openWorldHint already declaring it a safe, live-data read, the description adds real value on top: the exact result composition (accounts, hashtags with post counts, places with location ids) substitutes for the absent output schema, and the explicit 'Cost: 1 credit' discloses a billing trait annotations don't cover. It still omits pagination or result-limit 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?

Two tight sentences: the core action and scope lead, the result-type breakdown follows immediately, and the cost note is a compact trailing line. No filler or redundancy.

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 one-parameter discovery tool with no output schema, the description covers what the tool does, the shape of each result type, and its cost, which is enough to call it correctly. Missing only result limiting/pagination details and any routing versus other search siblings.

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?

There is a single parameter and schema description coverage is 100% ('Search text.', with an example and maxLength of 80), so the schema already carries the semantics. The description's 'one search box' merely restates the single-query model without adding matching, operator, or formatting guidance, so the 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?

States a specific verb (Search) and concrete resources (Instagram accounts, hashtags, places), and enumerates the three result types with their payloads (post counts, location ids). It does not, however, differentiate itself from sibling search tools such as instagram_audio_search or instagram_reels_search, so an agent must infer the scope difference.

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?

Usage is only implied: the description effectively says 'use this to look up accounts, hashtags or places,' and the credit-cost note hints at budget awareness. It never states when to prefer this over sibling lookups like instagram_hashtag, instagram_place, instagram_audio_search or instagram_reels_search, and offers no exclusions.

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