get_v1_location_search

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context that annotations do not: the call is a live Instagram request and is billed per invocation, which affects how readily an agent should call it.

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 terse fragments: purpose, alternative, cost. Front-loaded, no filler, and every clause carries information an agent needs.

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 low-complexity 2-param read tool with annotations present and no output schema, the definition covers purpose, alternative routing, and cost. It does not hint at what the returned locations contain, but that is a minor gap given the simplicity.

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%, but the description compensates by stating that lat and lng are passed together to form a coordinate, giving the parameters meaning beyond bare 'Lat'/'Lng' titles. No format details (precision, ranges, coordinate system) are supplied, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Specific verb+resource: 'Find Instagram locations at a coordinate', completed by the required lat/lng inputs. It explicitly names the sibling it is not (get_v1_fbsearch_places) and even cites the underlying endpoint, so an agent can distinguish it without opening schemas.

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?

States the selection condition (coordinate-based lookup) and names the alternative with the condition that routes to it ('search places by name'). Also flags that it is a live, billed call, which is real decision-relevant guidance.

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