Posts

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

The annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, which could mislead an agent into thinking this mutates data; the description resolves that ambiguity by clarifying these are 'read-like POST requests' that 'do not publish to social platforms' and that confirm=true is required. It also discloses credit consumption and the play-count caveat (Instagram-only views, excludes Facebook). It stops short of covering rate limits or auth.

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?

The response shape and scope are front-loaded, followed by pagination and then the credit/confirm caveat — a sensible ordering. It is dense with enumerated fields, but each clause carries signal rather than 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?

There is no output schema, so the description appropriately enumerates return fields (media type, shortcode, caption, counts, URLs, tagged users, created_at/taken_at). Pagination, credit cost, and confirm are all covered, leaving little an agent needs to know unaddressed.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3 and the schema already documents handle, account, trim, confirm, and next_max_id. The description adds only marginal value by explaining that next_max_id enables cursor scrolling through the full timeline, and says nothing about account or trim beyond what the schema states.

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 opens with a precise verb+resource ('Returns a paginated feed of a user's public Instagram posts') and enumerates the media types covered (reels, photos, videos, carousels), so the agent knows exactly what it fetches. It does not, however, explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like instagram_reels or instagram_user_tagged_posts, which overlap in scope.

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 supplies an operational prerequisite ('requires confirm=true') and warns that credits may be consumed, which is real usage friction the agent must handle. But it never states when to choose this tool over instagram_reels, instagram_user_tagged_posts, or instagram_profile, so alternative selection is left to inference.

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