instagram_profile: GET /

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry full behavioral transparency. It states the tool 'Fetches' data, implying a read operation, and lists returned fields. However, it omits important details such as rate limits, authentication requirements, data freshness guarantees, and error handling for invalid handles. The description is adequate but could be more thorough.

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 description is two sentences, beginning with a clear verb and resource. The first line 'Get Instagram Profile' is somewhat redundant with the title, but the overall structure is efficient and front-loaded with key information. Minor waste could be eliminated, but it remains concise.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema or annotations, the description covers the core functionality and returned fields. However, it lacks details on error responses, data format, and any constraints. The description is minimally sufficient but not fully complete for an agent to anticipate all behaviors.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for the single parameter 'handle', explaining it must be a username without '@'. The tool description adds minimal extra meaning beyond restating that the handle is used. Since the schema already fully documents the parameter, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves a public Instagram profile by handle, listing specific returned fields (full name, biography, etc.). The sibling tools are all for different platforms (Amazon, Google, etc.), making this tool distinct and uniquely identified for Instagram profile data.

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 explicitly provides several use cases (enrich CRM, verify influencer reach, monitor competitors, build datasets), giving clear context for when to use it. However, it does not mention when NOT to use it or compare it to other tools, but given the lack of similar tools on the server, this is a minor omission.

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