ig_account

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the substantive payload: connection state, token expiry, publishing quota, and scheduler status. However, it never states that the call is read-only / side-effect free, nor what happens when no account is connected or the token has expired — gaps that matter for a status tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

A single compact clause with no filler; each listed item (token expiry, quota, scheduler status) is distinct information. It loses a point only because the telegraphic, verb-less phrasing makes it less immediately parseable than a front-loaded action sentence would be.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description does reasonably well by enumerating the returned fields in place of a schema. It stops short of covering the failure modes (not connected, expired token) that an agent would want to know before calling, so it is adequate but not complete.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies the tool is parameterless and self-scoped to the connected account.

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 is a noun phrase naming the resource and the data it exposes (account, token expiry, 24h quota, scheduler status), but supplies no verb, so it reads as a label rather than a statement of what the tool does. The resource is identifiable and distinguishable from siblings like ig_publish or ig_insights, but only by inference.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus ig_insights, ig_queue_list, or the other sibling tools, and no mention of preconditions such as whether the account must be connected first. The agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name.

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