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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the read-only, external-network nature is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact, the 1-credit cost, but says nothing about failure modes such as private, suspended, or nonexistent handles, or whether the extra cost buys more fields than instagram_basic_profile.

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?

One fragment, front-loaded with the resource and the payload, plus the credit cost appended in parentheses. Nothing is wasted, though the terseness comes at the cost of any routing or caveat information.

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 single-parameter, read-only lookup with no output schema, listing the returned fields effectively stands in for a return description, and the credit cost is disclosed. What is missing is the sibling disambiguation against instagram_basic_profile, which is the one gap that matters.

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% for the single handle parameter, and the schema already states that a leading @ is acceptable. The description adds no further meaning about the handle, which is acceptable given the schema carries it fully — baseline 3.

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 names a specific resource (Instagram profile) and enumerates the returned fields (bio, avatar, followers, following, post count, category), so the agent knows exactly what it gets. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the sibling instagram_basic_profile, which by name appears to overlap heavily.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no exclusions. With siblings like instagram_basic_profile and instagram_search_profiles present, the definition leaves the agent to guess which profile tool to pick, which is the primary selection risk here.

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