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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, flagging this as a mutating operation, and the description's 'submit a Builder task' is consistent with that. Beyond restating that it submits a task, it adds no side-effect detail (permissions, what the destructive hint implies, rate limits). With annotations covering the safety profile, a baseline 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 second sentence is efficient and front-loads the action, but the first sentence is keyword-stuffed with five near-duplicate phrases ('Instagram 个人资料/用户资料/profile/用户信息/IG 个人资料') and filler verb lists. That redundancy costs conciseness without adding routing precision.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should ideally explain what a submitted task returns and how it relates to the scraper_task_status/result siblings. It does not mention the task lifecycle, leaving the agent to infer the follow-up. Adequate for a task-submission tool but with a clear workflow gap.

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% and each parameter already documents its own meaning and the mode it belongs to. The description only repeats the two spider_id enum values without adding new semantics. Baseline 3 for a full-coverage schema.

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 action — submitting an Instagram profile collection 'Builder' task — and names the exact collection modes supported (ins_profiles_by-username / ins_profiles_by-profileurl). This distinguishes it from siblings like instagram_comment and instagram_reel. It stops short of a crisp verb+resource statement because the trigger-keyword preamble dominates.

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?

It gives a trigger condition (user needs 'Instagram profile' + verbs like collect/scrape/get) and lists the two supported modes, which implies when to use it. But there is no explicit when-to-use-this-vs-alternative guidance and no rule for choosing between the two modes at the description level. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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