Instagram Channel Posts API

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, and the description adds substantial behavioral context: cost (3 credits live, 0 cache hit), a clear public-data boundary (no bios, contact details, login-walled data), pagination via nextCursor, and platform-specific field naming. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

The description is compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by distinct, valuable details: cursor, field naming, cost, public scope, and read-only nature. Every sentence earns its place with 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 simple paginated read operation, the description covers response shape, pagination, cost, access limits, and safety. However, since there is no output schema, it leaves some ambiguity about exactly what fields an item in the page contains; the statement 'Fields use this platform's own names' hints but does not enumerate them.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful meaning by linking the cache parameter to credit costs and the cursor parameter to nextCursor. It does not elaborate on limit or URL formatting beyond the schema, but it does supplement the schema rather than merely repeat it.

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 identifies the resource ('recent public posts for an Instagram account') and the operation ('Returns a page of items plus nextCursor'). It conveys pagination and public scope, which helps distinguish it from stats/profile siblings, but it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 use this tool versus alternatives like instagram_stats or instagram_profile. The phrase 'recent public posts' implies its use case, but no explicit conditions, exclusions, or sibling routing are provided.

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