Search Instagram

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: it specifies the endpoint, notes the 'organic' nature, indicates a credit cost, and describes the compact JSON return format and ranking by plays. This extra transparency about cost and return format is valuable.

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 sentences with zero redundancy. The primary purpose and unique surface are stated first, followed by the output format and cost. Every sentence earns its place, and the description is well-structured and easily scannable.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (2 parameters, no output schema), the description is complete: it explains the endpoint, differentiates from siblings, details the return fields, notes the ranking criterion, and mentions the credit cost. No essential information is missing for an agent to call it correctly.

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%, with both 'query' and 'limit' documented ('keyword to search reels for' and 'max reels returned (1–25, default 8)'). The description does not add additional meaning to the parameters themselves beyond the schema; it only mentions output format and cost. Hence, the baseline of 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 ('search'), resource ('Instagram REELS'), and scope ('keyword search'), names the exact endpoint, and explicitly distinguishes it from other IG surfaces ('our only IG keyword surface; profile/hashtag pulls go through fetch_social_data'). It also describes the output structure and ranking, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 explicitly tells when to use this tool vs alternatives by noting it is the only keyword surface and that profile/hashtag pulls go through fetch_social_data. It also mentions the credit cost, which helps in decision-making. No other usage guidance is needed for a simple search tool.

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