instagram_get_following

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint: false). The description adds value by flagging rate-limit and visibility rules via the sibling reference, which is beyond annotation scope. It also details the return fields, giving the agent a fuller picture of expected 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 compact and well-organized: purpose first, then a one-line sibling reference, then Args and Returns sections. Every sentence serves a purpose, with zero filler. The structure makes it easy to scan.

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 description covers return format (count, requested, possibly_more, users[] fields), mentions rate-limit and visibility cautions, and the schema fully documents parameters. It lacks explicit pagination instructions, though 'possibly_more' implies them, and subtle details like error handling are absent. Given the tool's simplicity and existing annotation coverage, this is adequately complete.

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% — each parameter (username, user_id, amount) already has a clear description. The description rephrases these but adds no new meaning; 'if you already have it' for user_id marginally reinforces the schema's 'Use instead of username,' but this is not substantial. Baseline 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 opens with 'List the accounts a user follows,' a specific verb+resource statement. It clearly distinguishes from the sibling instagram_get_followers by direction (following vs. followers) and names that sibling, leaving no ambiguity about what this tool does.

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 references 'Same visibility rules and rate-limit caution as instagram_get_followers,' giving contextual guidance about shared constraints. It doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool vs. the alternative, but the name and opening line make the use case obvious. Lacks an explicit exclusion, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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