Instagram insights

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: results are aggregated totals over the period rather than a time series, and deprecated metrics are refused (impressions, plays, video_views), which tells the agent to expect a rejection rather than silent empty data.

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 sentences, no filler, key scope (entity, aggregation, metric set) front-loaded before the constraint about deprecated metrics. Every clause earns its place.

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 100% schema coverage, no output schema, and no required parameters, the description supplies the remaining essentials: aggregation semantics and the deprecated-metric refusal. It could say more about what happens when metrics and dates are both omitted, but nothing needed to call the tool correctly is missing.

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 defaults, date format, the 30-day cap, and client/account fallback behavior are all documented in the schema. The description adds only the aggregation semantics of the date range and the metric whitelist, which is marginal beyond what the schema already states; 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 names a specific verb-plus-resource ('Instagram professional account insights') and scopes it to a period total, which clearly separates it from account/report-level siblings like ga4_report or gads_performance. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the closer siblings meta_insights or meta_page_insights, so it stops short of a 5.

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 implied by 'total over the period' and the listed IG account metrics, and the deprecated-metric clause tells the agent what not to request. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance versus meta_insights, meta_page_insights, or openai_ads_insights, which is the key routing decision an agent faces here.

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