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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It discloses billing cost ('Billing per call: 1 Credits') but omits other relevant behaviors such as whether authentication is required, response format, or potential errors. The 'Get' verb implies read-only, but this is not explicitly stated.

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 description is very short and includes only essential information: purpose, target account type, and billing. It is front-loaded and to the point, though the grammar is slightly awkward (missing punctuation between 'phone' and 'Billing'), which prevents a perfect conciseness score.

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 simple one-parameter get tool, the description is adequate: it states what is fetched (email, phone), the billing cost, and implies the user ID is the input. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it would benefit from mentioning the response shape or any limitations, and it lacks guidance on how this tool differs from sibling get_info tools, leaving some completeness gaps.

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 100% (id_user is described as 'User ID'), so the baseline is 3. The description does not add extra semantics beyond the schema, such as format expectations or how the ID relates to a business account. It simply mentions the tool is for business accounts, which applies to the API context rather than the parameter itself.

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 clearly states the tool gets Instagram user info for a Business account, specifically email and phone. The verb 'Get' plus resource 'Instagram user info, Business account' makes the purpose concrete and distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_info or get_info_username by targeting business account contact details.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the many similar get_* siblings, nor any exclusions or preconditions. The description only states what the tool does and billing cost, offering no context for tool selection.

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