instagram_top_accounts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: daily update cadence, the 1/7/30-day change windows, CC BY 4.0 licensing with a mandatory credit-and-link obligation, and zero credit cost with an API-key requirement.

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 core purpose is front-loaded in the first two words, and the sentences are dense with useful facts. Minor deduction because the closing 'Cost: 0 credits.' is a pure repeat of the earlier 'Free (0 credits)', a sentence that does not earn its place.

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 6-param, no-required read tool with no output schema, the description supplies the return fields (rankings, changes, country, category, milestones), update cadence, auth requirement and licensing terms, which is nearly everything an agent needs. Pagination semantics for offset are left solely to the schema.

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 every parameter – sort, limit, offset, window, country, category – is fully documented in the schema itself. The description's mention of follower changes, country, category and milestones merely restates the same fields, so baseline 3 is correct.

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 names a specific resource and scope: 'Most-followed Instagram accounts, gainers and losers,' ranked by followers with 1/7/30-day changes. This is clearly distinct from the per-account siblings (instagram_profile, instagram_followers, instagram_likers), which operate on one account, so an agent can route without opening a 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?

It states the cost model ('Free (0 credits); needs any API key') and points at the equivalent web page, which implies when this endpoint is appropriate. But it names no alternative tool and gives no when-not-to-use condition, leaving alternative-selection to inference.

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