List posts

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: result ordering (newest first), that results are paged, and that an 'after' cursor is returned when more exist. It says nothing about rate limits, page-size defaults, or empty-account behavior, so it stops short of rich disclosure.

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 tight sentences with zero filler, and the core capability plus return shape is front-loaded before the sibling routing. Slightly more text than the minimum, but every sentence carries distinct information.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description does a fair job compensating by naming the return shape and cursor. However, an agent still cannot tell whether the response envelope includes media type, timestamps, or media IDs needed to feed ig_get_media, which is the natural next call.

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 coverage is 100%, so all three parameters are already documented, which sets the baseline at 3. The description does add meaningful usage semantics for 'after' by explaining the round-trip (result gives a cursor, pass it back), but says nothing about 'limit' bounds or 'response_format' behavior.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List the account's posts, reels and carousels') plus the returned fields (likes, comment counts) and ordering (newest first). It explicitly distinguishes itself from ig_get_media and ig_get_media_insights, so an agent can route without opening any schema.

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?

Names both alternatives and the condition that selects them: ig_get_media for a single post's full details, ig_get_media_insights for views/reach. The pagination instruction ('pass back the after cursor') further tells the agent how to continue, leaving nothing to inference.

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