Get account profile

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations, the description discloses meaningful behavior: the operation is a GET to /{ig-id}, fields the account hides or Meta omits are simply absent rather than errors, and account-controlled free-text fields arrive inside an untrusted content fence. These are valuable runtime expectations an agent cannot infer from annotations alone.

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?

Four tight sentences front-load the main outcome, then add only high-value behavioral caveats. There is no repeated title or boilerplate; every sentence contributes information an agent needs before calling the tool.

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 single-optional-parameter fetch with a provided output schema, the description is complete: it states the resource, the field set, the read-only nature, missing-field behavior, and the security fence. The output schema covers return shape, and annotations cover safety, so nothing essential is missing.

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 the single optional account parameter already has a thorough schema description, including the default-profile behavior. The tool description therefore adds no parameter-level meaning, and 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?

The description opens with a specific verb-resource pair — "Fetch the profile of the operated Instagram professional account" — and enumerates exactly which fields are returned (username, display name, biography, website, profile-picture URL, follower/following/media counts). This field list differentiates it from sibling tools such as get_account_insights or get_audience_demographics without needing to read their schemas.

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 makes the tool's scope clear: it fetches the basic profile of the operated professional account, not insights or media. However, it never explicitly tells the agent when to choose this tool over a sibling or when not to use it, leaving usage conditions to be inferred from the field list.

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