get_g2_location_by_id

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, openWorld, non-destructive), and the description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: it is a live Instagram request billed per call, plus the underlying endpoint. It doesn't mention rate limits or failure modes, so not a 5.

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?

One tight block: purpose and returned fields first, then routing guidance, then billing/endpoint note. Every clause earns its place with no filler.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description compensates by listing the returned fields, and it covers the prerequisite for the required id. Billing and routing are covered; only id format details are absent.

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% and the single `id` parameter has no description in the schema, so the description must compensate. It does add meaning by explaining where the id comes from (the two search tools), though it doesn't specify the id's format. Solid but not exhaustive.

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 ('Get') and resource ('an Instagram location by id') and enumerates the returned fields (name, latitude/longitude, category, description). It is clearly distinguishable from the location media and search siblings named in the text.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: use `get_v1_fbsearch_places` or `get_v1_location_search` to obtain the id, and the location media tools for posts at the location. Both the prerequisite and the alternative siblings are named with their selection condition.

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