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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that there is a maximum of 100 items and a cost of 1 credit, which is useful behavioral context. However, it omits details like authentication requirements, response format, whether it supports pagination (though next_max_id is in schema), or any side effects. Since it adds some disclosure (limit and cost) but not comprehensive, a 3 is appropriate.

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 extremely concise: one sentence with two pieces of essential info (max count and cost). Every word earns its place, and there is no filler or repetition. It is front-loaded with the core purpose.

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?

The tool has 3 parameters (none required), no output schema, and no annotations. The description is too sparse to understand what the tool returns, how pagination works (despite next_max_id), or what 'query' is for. Given the many sibling tools and the lack of any behavioral detail beyond cost/limit, the description is incomplete for effective agent use.

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 67%, so the baseline is 3. The description itself adds no parameter semantics—it doesn't explain 'query', 'id_user', or 'next_max_id'. However, the schema already documents id_user and next_max_id, leaving only 'query' undocumented. The description does not compensate for that gap, so it stays at baseline.

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 states 'Get instagram user Followings' which clearly identifies the action (get) and resource (user followings). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_followers by naming the specific resource. However, it doesn't elaborate on what is returned (e.g., list of usernames) or how it relates to other get_* tools beyond the name.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, differences from get_followers, or what scenarios warrant using this tool. The only operational hints are 'Max - 100' and billing, which are not usage guidelines. This is a clear gap.

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