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

Annotations cover safety (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint), and the description adds genuinely new behavior: the cost (3 credits), the public-account-only visibility limit, the inclusion of a total, and cursor-based pagination. It does not describe rate limits or error behavior, but the added context is solid.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then pagination and cost. The telegraphic style ('Page with cursor.', 'Cost: 3 credits.') is efficient, though slightly clipped.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully mentions the total and cursor paging so the agent knows the return shape is paginated. Combined with the credit cost and public-only scope, it covers what an agent needs to call it correctly.

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 cursor, user_id, and username are already fully documented in the schema, including the 'pass this or username' mutual exclusivity. The description adds only the pagination intent behind cursor, so baseline 3 applies.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Get accounts an account follows' plus a clarifying restatement of direction ('who a public account follows'), which is enough to separate it from the adjacent instagram_followers tool even though that sibling is not named. Clear but no explicit sibling routing.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: 'Who a public account follows' signals the public-account scope constraint, and 'Page with cursor' implies iterative calls. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-to-prefer-instagram_followers guidance.

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