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

Annotations only cover read-only and open-world safety, but the description adds substantial behavioral detail beyond them: results are a sample, the total like count is included, there is exactly one page with no cursor, and the call costs 3 credits. This is exactly the kind of context an agent needs to set expectations and manage budget.

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?

Two tight sentences plus a one-line cost note, with the core purpose front-loaded and the sampling limitation immediately after. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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 carries the return-value burden and does so by describing both the sample of likers and the total like count. Combined with the annotation-covered safety profile and fully documented params, an agent has everything needed to call this 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 url and shortcode are already documented with an example and an explicit 'pass this or shortcode' relationship. The description adds nothing about parameter formats, so the 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?

States a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('accounts that liked an Instagram post') with the exact scope of the result. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like instagram_followers, instagram_comments, and instagram_likers' nearest neighbors without needing to open any schema.

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?

The description implies when-not-to-use by warning it returns only a sample and one page per call, which is useful context for an agent deciding whether it needs a full list. However, it never names an alternative tool or the condition that would route the agent elsewhere, so usage guidance is only implied.

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