instagram_following

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

Annotations already cover the read-only and open-world profile. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: results are paginated via cursor, the response includes a total, the target must be a public account, and the call costs 3 credits. It stops short of describing rate limits or failure modes for private accounts.

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, front-loaded lines with no filler, and the pagination and cost facts are easy to scan. Slight redundancy between 'Get accounts an account follows' and 'Who a public account follows' costs it a point.

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 cursor-paginated list tool with no output schema, the description supplies the essentials: total count returned, cursor-based paging, public-account restriction, and cost. It does not enumerate returned fields, but the core needs for correct invocation are covered.

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 schema already documents cursor, user_id, and username thoroughly. The description only restates that paging uses a cursor, adding no syntax or format detail beyond the structured fields; baseline 3.

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: retrieve the accounts a given account follows, plus the total count. The contrast with instagram_followers is inferable from the word 'follows' but never stated, so it does not fully differentiate from that sibling.

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 'Who a public account follows' gives an implicit context (public accounts only) but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no reference to instagram_followers as the inverse operation, which is the most likely confusion point for an agent.

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