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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real workflow context (that the body must be derived from prior discovery calls and that this is the terminal step), but says nothing about failure behavior for an invalid body, rate limits, or what class of data comes back. The phrase "follow the schema exactly" is also unhelpful given the schema is an open free-form object.

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?

Front-loaded with the workflow stage and the numbered required steps, which is the right ordering for a staged tool. There is mild redundancy: "REQUIRED: Complete these steps first," "IMPORTANT: Always call step 2," and "Rely on info from steps 1-2" restate the same instruction three times.

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 complex staged tool with a free-form nested body and an output schema (so return values needn't be explained) plus readOnly/openWorld annotations, the description covers the critical missing piece: how to obtain the body contract before calling. The main remaining gap is the absence of any routing guidance versus `execute_action`.

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?

The single `body` parameter has 0% schema description coverage and accepts arbitrary properties, so the schema itself communicates nothing about shape. The description partially compensates by routing the agent to `query_contexts` / `request='actions_details'` as the source of the body structure — a genuinely useful pointer — but it gives no concrete field guidance of its own.

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 verb + resource ("Query Instagram data") but the resource scope is extremely broad, and the single free-form `body` object gives no hint of what is being queried. The workflow framing ("Step 3 (FINAL)") positions it relative to `query_contexts`, but it never distinguishes this tool from the sibling `execute_action`, which an agent could plausibly pick for the same goal.

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 names the prerequisite tool and the exact request values needed (`request='accounts'`, then `request='actions_details'` with actions=['xxxx']), which is unusually actionable context. It lacks any statement of when NOT to use this tool or how it differs from `execute_action`, so it stops short of the 5 level.

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