instagram_search_locations

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

The annotations already cover readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the description does not need to repeat those. It adds valuable context by describing the return format (count and locations[] with specific fields) and the integration with the media tool, which goes beyond the annotations. No contradictions found.

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 well-structured: a clear first sentence stating purpose, a second sentence for integration, then Args and Returns. It is concise and front-loaded, though the Args/Returns section could be omitted since the schema and output schema cover the same details. Still, it is not verbose and every line serves a purpose.

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?

With an output schema present and annotations covering safety/idempotency, the description provides all necessary operational context: what the tool does, how to use the result, and the structure of the output. There are no missing pieces an agent would need to call this tool 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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters. The 'query' description includes examples, and 'amount' says 'Maximum places to return.' The description's Args section restates these but adds only minimal extra meaning (e.g., 'How many places to keep'), so it does not significantly compensate beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool 'Find Instagram place pages by name, to get a location_id.' This is specific and distinguishes it from sibling search tools like instagram_search_users or instagram_search_posts by focusing on places and the resulting location_id. The downstream integration with instagram_get_location_medias is also mentioned, reinforcing the purpose.

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 says 'Feed instagram_get_location_medias with the location_id you get back,' which provides clear contextual guidance on how to use the result. It does not explicitly list alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is so focused that an agent can infer when to use it. This earns a 4 rather than 5 due to the lack of explicit contrast with other search tools.

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