transcribe_instagram_channel

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and non-idempotency, and the description adds real behavioral context: 1 credit reserved per requested reel, refund rules, paid-plan gating, and the consent/API-key requirement. It still omits what happens on partial failure or how credits are refunded in edge cases, but it goes meaningfully beyond the annotations.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, with eligibility and cost details following. Every sentence carries distinct information; only the refund-rules clause is slightly opaque without further detail.

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?

For a credit-consuming, non-idempotent batch tool with no output schema, the description covers limits, cost, eligibility, and consent requirements, which is most of what an agent needs before invoking. Return shape and pagination behavior are absent, but no output schema exists to lean on.

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 0%, so the description must carry the load. It does convey the reelCount cap ('up to 50 reels') and the optional date filter ('optionally after a date'), but it adds no format, pattern, or username-syntax detail for channelUsername or onlyPostsNewerThan. It partially compensates but leaves gaps.

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 ('Transcribe ... reels from an Instagram channel') with a hard scope limit of 50. It is clearly distinguishable from get/list/search siblings by resource, though it does not explicitly contrast with the closely related transcribe_bulk or transcribe_video.

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?

Gives useful eligibility conditions ('Paid plans only', 'Requires an API key or additional batch transcription consent') and the optional date scoping. However, it never states when to choose this over transcribe_bulk or transcribe_video, so the routing decision between siblings is left to inference.

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