get_instagram_profile

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Get Instagram profile data' implies a read-only operation but doesn't specify authentication requirements, rate limits, data freshness, or what happens with invalid handles. For a tool accessing external APIs with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral questions unanswered.

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 extremely concise at just four words, front-loading the essential purpose with zero wasted words. Every word earns its place, making it immediately scannable and understandable despite its brevity.

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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and accessing external social media data, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what profile data is returned (basic info, statistics, media), authentication needs, rate limits, or error handling. The context signals show this is a simple single-parameter tool, but the external API nature requires more disclosure than provided.

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 with 'handle' clearly documented as 'Instagram username'. The description doesn't add any parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides (no format examples, character limits, or validation rules). With complete schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't need to.

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 'Get Instagram profile data' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('Instagram profile data'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from its sibling 'get_instagram_posts' which also retrieves Instagram data, nor does it specify what aspects of a profile are retrieved (bio, followers, etc.).

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 siblings like 'get_instagram_posts' and 'get_tiktok_profile' available, there's no indication whether this is for basic profile info versus posts, or how it differs from other social media profile tools. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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