search_hashtag

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tool's purpose and output usage, but lacks details on behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or whether it's a read-only operation (implied by 'search' but not explicit). The description adds some context but misses key operational aspects.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence earns its place by providing essential information (search action and ID usage) without any waste 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?

Given the tool's low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is mostly complete for its purpose. It covers what the tool does and how to use the output, but lacks details on return values (since no output schema) and behavioral context, which slightly reduces completeness for an agent's needs.

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 schema already documents the parameter 'hashtag_name' with its description. The description does not add any meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., no examples, formatting tips, or constraints), meeting the baseline for high coverage without extra value.

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 states the specific action ('Search for an Instagram hashtag') and the resource ('hashtag'), and it distinguishes from siblings by specifying the output ('get its ID') and its intended use ('Use the returned ID with get_hashtag_media'), which differentiates it from tools like 'business_discovery' or 'get_mentions' that handle other Instagram resources.

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?

It explicitly states when to use this tool ('Search for an Instagram hashtag and get its ID') and provides a clear alternative or follow-up action ('Use the returned ID with get_hashtag_media'), which helps the agent understand the tool's role in a workflow without needing to infer from sibling names alone.

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