Research hashtags

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds real operational context beyond them: the 30-distinct-hashtags-per-7-days Instagram limit, that repeats are free, that remaining budget is surfaced, and the Facebook Login account restriction. It does not state whether this call itself consumes budget or what happens when the budget is exhausted.

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?

Dense and front-loaded — the output inventory comes first, then the budget constraint, then the account restriction. The parenthetical 'top (or most recent)' is slightly awkward but earns its place by explaining the edge choice; otherwise there is no filler.

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, so the description carries the return-value burden, and it does describe the shape of results per hashtag. Combined with the budget and account-type constraints, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only per-call cost/limit interactions are underspecified.

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?

With 50% schema coverage, the description partially compensates: 'top (or most recent)' maps directly onto the undocumented `edge` enum values. However, it adds nothing about the `account` selector, the sample-size behavior of `limit`, or that `hashtags` accepts at most 10 entries, leaving the multi-hashtag batching semantics to the schema alone.

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 the resource (hashtags) and enumerates the concrete outputs: top/recent public posts, median likes and comments, format mix, related hashtags, and example posts. That is far more specific than the title, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with siblings like hashtag_budget or generate_hashtags.

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 rather than stated: the budget and 'Facebook Login accounts only' notes tell the agent the preconditions, but there is no explicit 'use this instead of X when Y'. Given the presence of hashtag_budget and generate_hashtags in the sibling list, a routing sentence would have been valuable.

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