get_v1_share_by_url

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint). The description adds real context beyond that: it is a live request to Instagram that is billed per call, plus the chaining workflow. It doesn't discuss failure modes (e.g., non-share URLs or expired links), so it stops 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?

Purpose is front-loaded, followed by scope, follow-up routing, the alternative for posts, and billing/endpoint. No sentence is redundant; each adds a distinct, actionable fact.

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 resolve tool with no output schema, the description supplies the return shape (id/pk and type), the workflow to continue with, the sibling alternative, and billing cost. Nothing essential to calling it correctly is missing.

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 parameter. It compensates by defining the url as a link that contains /s/ and explaining that it resolves to a pk and type, which is meaningful semantics for the single argument. It omits format details like full URL vs. path fragment.

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 (Resolve) and resource (Instagram share link containing /s/), and explicitly says what it returns: the object's id (pk) and type. It distinguishes itself from siblings by naming get_v2_media_info_by_url for post links, so an agent can route without opening a 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?

Explicitly scopes applicability ('Works for stories and highlights only'), names the follow-up calls (get_v2_story_by_id or get_v2_highlight_by_id with the returned id), and redirects post links to get_v2_media_info_by_url. Both when-to-use and when-not/alternative are stated.

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