instagram_highlights

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one real behavioral signal — that results are matched against the live account, consistent with openWorldHint — but says nothing about ordering, pagination, or what happens when the account has no highlights.

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?

A single short sentence with no waste, but the brevity comes at the cost of under-specification rather than efficiency. The key qualifier ('照合') is the least clear part, so the sentence is not front-loaded with actionable meaning.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, for a tool whose only parameter is undocumented and whose core semantics ('照合') are undefined, the description leaves essential behavior — what the reconciliation means and how 'profile' changes results — entirely to inference.

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?

There is one parameter ('profile') with 0% schema description coverage, and the description does not mention it at all — not its meaning, its null default, or what omitting it does (likely defaults to the authenticated account). With coverage at 0%, the description is expected to compensate and does not.

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 verb+resource is present ('returns a list of existing highlights'), but the phrase '照合して' (cross-reference/match against the actual account) is ambiguous — it is unclear whether this reconciles highlights against the live profile, filters them, or enriches them. It does not distinguish itself from siblings such as instagram_accounts or instagram_resume_highlight.

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?

No when-to-use guidance is given, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives among the seven siblings. The agent must infer from the name alone whether to call this or instagram_resume_highlight.

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