instagram_profile

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile and open-world nature are covered structurally. The description adds the credit cost (1 credit) and the public-account scope, which are useful operational details not in the annotations. It does not disclose rate limits, failure modes for private/missing accounts, or response shape.

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 short sentences: the payload-bearing enumeration comes first, and the credit cost is a compact separate line. Slightly list-heavy but every element earns its place; nothing is padded or redundant.

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 lookup with 100% schema coverage, no output schema, and annotations covering safety and open-world hints, the description is nearly complete—field list, scope, and cost are all present. The remaining gap is that the agent must assume the response shape from the field enumeration, but that is a minor omission for a profile-getter.

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%—the schema already documents both user_id and username, including the either/or requirement and the '@'-optional, URL-accepting behavior of username. The description adds nothing about parameters, so 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?

Specific verb (Get) plus resource (Instagram profile) with an explicit enumeration of returned fields (follower/following/post counts, bio, links, category, verification, profile picture) and scope (any public account). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like instagram_username, instagram_followers, or instagram_check.

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 states the scope ('any public account') and enumerates the returned fields, which implicitly tells the agent when this tool applies versus generic siblings. However, it never names alternatives or exclusions, so the agent must infer routing decisions—e.g. whether this differs from instagram_username or instagram_user_id—on its own.

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