instagram_account_about

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds extra behavioral context: it notes that fields are omitted if Instagram doesn't return them and that a note is included when the country is missing. This goes beyond the annotations and informs the agent about potential incomplete responses.

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 well-structured: a crisp purpose line, a short rationale for why the data matters, then labeled Args/Returns sections. While the rationale paragraph is not strictly necessary for invoking the tool, it is valuable for decision-making and does not feel verbose. The main purpose is front-loaded, and every section earns its place.

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?

The tool has an output schema (not shown but indicated as present), and the description's Returns section covers what fields to expect and the behavior for missing data (omission and a note). It does not mention login prerequisites or error handling, but given the read-only, idempotent nature and the simplicity of the panel, the description is largely complete for an agent to call it correctly.

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% — both parameters (username and user_id) are described in the input schema. The description's Args section repeats these descriptions without adding meaning beyond what the schema already provides. It does not explain the relationship between the two parameters (e.g., which takes precedence), so it stays at the baseline.

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 and resource: 'Read Instagram's own "About this account" panel' and lists the exact fields (country, join date, past handles). This clearly distinguishes it from other info-gathering tools like instagram_account_info or instagram_get_user, even though it doesn't name them. The purpose is unambiguous and self-contained.

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 explains why the country field is valuable ('single most trustworthy location signal a profile can carry') and how join date and former usernames help spot newer or recycled accounts. This gives clear context for when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when to avoid using it, so it misses the highest bar.

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