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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds valuable context: pagination behavior (next_cursor, null means no more pages), an error case (private accounts return 422), and cost (3 credits). This goes beyond the annotations, though it doesn't cover all potential behaviors like rate limits beyond cost.

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 tight and front-loaded: purpose first, then pagination details, error case, and cost. Every sentence is informative and earns its place.

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 explains the return shape ('one page of the accounts... with the total') and key behaviors like pagination and errors. It is complete enough for correct invocation, though minor details like exact response structure or rate limits beyond cost are omitted.

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 the schema fully documents the three parameters. The description reinforces cursor usage and mentions the null pagination signal, but adds little semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Get accounts an account follows.' It distinguishes from the sibling 'instagram_followers' by making the direction explicit (accounts the target follows, not followers). No ambiguity about what the tool returns.

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 by the purpose, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus the sibling 'instagram_followers' or other profile-related tools. No when-not conditions are stated.

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