instagram_user_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it mentions what information is retrieved (profile, statistics, external links), it doesn't cover critical aspects like rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or whether this is a read-only operation. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 appropriately concise and well-structured: it starts with the core purpose, lists what information is included, and provides clear sections for Args and Returns. Every sentence adds value, though the return statement could be more specific about the data format beyond 'string'.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (single parameter, no annotations, but has an output schema), the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the purpose and parameter semantics reasonably well, but lacks usage guidelines and behavioral details. The presence of an output schema means the description doesn't need to explain return values in detail, but overall it leaves room for improvement in guiding effective tool selection.

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 description adds meaningful context for the single parameter: it specifies that 'username' is an Instagram username without the '@' symbol. With schema description coverage at 0% and only one parameter, this clarification is valuable and compensates well for the lack of schema documentation, though it doesn't cover edge cases or format details beyond the basic requirement.

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's purpose: 'Instagramユーザーの詳細情報を取得します' (Get detailed information about an Instagram user). It specifies the resource (Instagram user) and the action (get detailed information). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'instagram_user_stats' or 'instagram_user_posts', which might provide overlapping or more specific 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple sibling tools available (e.g., instagram_user_stats, instagram_user_posts), there's no indication of what makes this tool distinct or when it should be preferred over others that might provide similar or more targeted information.

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