instagram_followers

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: it discloses pagination behavior ('Page with cursor where available'), that results are limited to public accounts, and the credit cost (3 credits), none of which are in the annotations.

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 core purpose, then scope, then pagination, then cost. Every sentence carries distinct information with no filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully notes that a total follower count is returned and that paging uses a cursor. It covers the essentials for a paginated read tool; minor gaps remain around rate limits or auth, but the annotations and cost note give sufficient context.

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%, so the parameters (cursor, user_id, username) are already fully documented in the schema. The description only alludes to cursor via 'Page with cursor where available' and adds no format or constraint detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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 an account's followers') and clarifies scope with 'Public follower list of a public account, with the total follower count.' This naturally distinguishes it from the sibling instagram_following, but the description never names that alternative explicitly.

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 phrase 'Public follower list of a public account' implies the tool only applies to public accounts, which is a soft usage constraint. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisite statement, and no reference to alternatives like instagram_following.

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