instagram_tagged

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true), so the bar is lower. The description still adds real value by disclosing that only public posts from other accounts are returned and by stating 'Cost: 1 credit,' which is billing information no annotation or schema field carries.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by scope and then a cost note. No filler and nothing buried.

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 read-only tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description covers purpose, data scope, and cost adequately. Its only gaps are pagination behavior beyond the cursor parameter and result ordering/fields, which are minor but leave a small amount unsaid.

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 user_id, username, and cursor are already well documented in the schema (including the 'or' relationship and the cursor's role). The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 posts an account is tagged in') and clarifies the data source ('Public posts by other accounts that tag this account'), which is distinct from the sibling instagram_posts (posts authored by the account). It never names a sibling explicitly, so an agent must infer differentiation from naming alone.

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 line 'Useful for UGC, brand mentions and influencer tracking' gives clear context for when this tool applies, which is better than nothing. However, it provides no when-not guidance and never points at the closest alternative, instagram_posts, or explains what to do when a user wants posts owned by the account rather than tagging it.

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