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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety and scope are covered structurally. The description adds the useful workflow rule of pairing the call with get_alerts, but says nothing about data freshness, whether the account must be monitored/connected first, or limits on historical depth.

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 sentences, purpose first, then trigger conditions, then the chained-call advice. No filler or restated title, and each sentence contributes something actionable.

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 read-only, 3-parameter tool with no output schema, the description tells the agent what metrics come back and when to call it, which is close to sufficient. The main omission is a prerequisite (e.g., whether the account must already be tracked via list_monitored_accounts) or any caveat on data availability.

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 both enum parameters are fully documented with defaults, so the schema carries the load. The description mentions the time-period concept and metric areas only at a high level, adding no syntax or behavioral detail beyond what the schema states. 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 Instagram account statistics') and enumerates the metrics returned (followers, engagement rate, reach, growth) plus the time dimension. The 'Instagram' qualifier cleanly separates it from the sibling get_tiktok_account_stats, so an agent can route without opening the 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?

Gives concrete triggering conditions ('when someone asks about an account's performance, how an account is doing, or wants a stats overview') and even prescribes a companion call to get_alerts so declining accounts are flagged. It stops short of disambiguating against close siblings like get_growth_summary, compare_accounts, or get_audience_insights, which also cover performance questions.

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