Get Instagram media

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses meaningful behavior: carousel children are included, captions are returned as fenced untrusted text, undisclosed fields are omitted rather than nulled, and deleted/expired objects produce errors. This gives an agent a strong model of what to expect.

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 dense sentences front-load the core action and then add the most important caveats: children inclusion, caption trust boundary, field omission behavior, and error conditions. There is no wasted wording.

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?

With an output schema present, the description does not need to explain return structure. It covers the critical non-obvious behaviors—omitted vs null fields, error-on-deleted/expired, and caption security—making the tool fully callable by an agent.

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 schema already documents both parameters well. The description adds little parameter-specific meaning beyond confirming that the operation is by id, which is adequate given the high schema coverage.

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 clearly states the operation: fetching a single media object by id, which distinguishes it from list-style siblings like instagram_list_media. Mentioning carousel children under `children` adds specific resource detail that makes the tool's scope unambiguous.

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: this is for a single media object by id rather than a list or a specific sub-resource. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the 'single media object by id' framing makes the intended use reasonably obvious.

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