instagram_get_user

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful behavioral details beyond those: resolving usernames to IDs, checking privacy, and the fact that 'Fields Instagram does not return are omitted.' These explain expected output variability without contradicting the annotations.

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 concise and well-structured: a clear one-sentence purpose, followed by usage guidance, then args and returns in a labeled format. It is front-loaded with the most important information and every sentence contributes value, with no redundancy.

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 all necessary aspects: purpose, usage scenarios, returned fields (including omission behavior), and tool differentiation. Given the strong annotation context (readOnly, openWorld, idempotent) and the presence of an output schema, nothing critical is missing for an agent to call this tool 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?

The schema descriptions for both username and user_id already provide clear guidance (format, examples, and 'Use instead of username'), with 100% schema description coverage. The description's Args section repeats this without adding new meaning beyond 'if you already have it' for user_id, which the schema implies. Thus the baseline of 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 a specific verb and resource: 'Get a user's full public profile: counts, biography, category and links.' It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool instagram_get_user_medias by explicitly directing the agent to that tool for posts, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: 'resolve a username to a user_id, to check whether an account is private before trying to read its posts, or to read follower/following/post counts.' It also names the alternative for posts ('For the posts themselves use instagram_get_user_medias'), leaving no ambiguity about tool selection.

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