instagram_likers

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond that: results are a sample, only one page per call with no cursor, it is not the full liker list, only public posts are covered, the response includes total like count, and it costs 3 credits. These are exactly the constraints an agent needs to avoid misusing the tool.

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 purpose, then limitations, then cost. There is no filler and every sentence carries distinct, useful information.

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 tool with no output schema, the description does state what is returned (a sample of accounts plus total like count) and the key constraints. It stops short of describing the per-account fields or response shape, but is otherwise sufficient for correct invocation.

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 parameters (url, shortcode) are documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no format, syntax, or precedence detail beyond what the schema already provides, so it neither over- nor under-delivers here.

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 that liked an Instagram post,' which is distinct from the followers/following/tagged siblings in the family. It does not explicitly name or route against any alternative tool, but the resource itself is unique enough that an agent can identify it.

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 clear purpose, but the description offers no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-tool guidance. The pagination caveat ('not the full list of likers') is a constraint rather than routing guidance, so this stays at minimum-viable.

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