get_gql_user_reposts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds context the annotations cannot convey: it is a live request to Instagram (hence open-world/non-deterministic), it is billed per call, and results are paginated one page at a time. It does not describe failure modes or rate limits, so it falls short of 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?

Three dense sentences plus an endpoint tag, with the purpose front-loaded and the sibling disambiguation before the mechanics. No filler and nothing repeated from the schema beyond necessary clarification.

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 no-output-schema, paginated, billed read tool, the description supplies everything needed to invoke and continue calls correctly, including the response-cursor contract. It stops just short of describing response shape or error behavior, which is acceptable given there is no output schema 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 description coverage is only 33% (only `flat` is documented), so the description must compensate, and it does: `user_id` is framed as the required subject, `repost_next_max_id` is explained as the cursor from the previous response, and `flat=true` is restated as returning a simple items list. It adds the pagination semantics the schema lacks, though not full type/format detail.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('List content an Instagram user has reposted') and immediately distinguishes it from the closest sibling, `get_gql_user_medias` for the user's own posts. An agent can select between the two without opening either schema.

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?

It names the alternative tool and the condition that selects it ('Use `get_gql_user_medias` for the user's own posts'), and explains the pagination workflow explicitly (pass `user_id`; feed the previous response's cursor back as `repost_next_max_id`). Both the when-to-use and the how-to-continue are covered.

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