instagram_search_results

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, and the description does not contradict these. It adds valuable contextual behavior: the distinction between ranked_score and coverage, the caveat about 'unverified' results, the meaning of 'unobserved' versus 'not matching', and that advisory attributes are reported but do not influence ranking. This goes beyond the annotations and improves the agent's understanding of the result semantics.

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 reasonably concise and front-loaded with the most important interpretation guidance ('Read two numbers, not one'). It is structured with a brief overview, an explanation of key concepts, and a clear Args/Returns section. The extra explanation about unobserved and advisory is essential context, so it earns its place. It is slightly verbose but not wasteful.

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, the description still lists the return fields, which is helpful. It covers the critical interpretation nuances (scoring, coverage, attribute states) that the schema does not express. It is complete enough for a read-only search-results retrieval tool, though it could mention that the search must already exist or be started via another tool. This is a minor omission given the depth of the rest.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters (search_id and limit) having clear descriptions. The tool description repeats the args and adds no additional parameter-specific semantics (e.g., no instructions on how to obtain a search_id, no notes on limit behavior beyond what the schema already provides). It meets the baseline for schema-covered parameters but does not enhance them.

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 it returns ranked search results with evidence, and explains the key fields (ranked_score, coverage, unobserved, advisory). It distinguishes itself by focusing on the result of a search rather than the search initiation, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling search-related tools like instagram_search_list or instagram_search_recall, leaving some ambiguity about when to use this specific result-reader.

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 implies usage by requiring a search_id and explains how to interpret the results, but it never explicitly states when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this tool should be used after starting a search with one of the instagram_search_* tools, nor does it say when not to use it. The guidance is mostly about interpreting output rather than selecting the tool.

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