instagram_search_users

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds valuable behavioral context: results are 'shallow' (limited fields) and it recommends a follow-up tool for richer data. It also notes that results match the app's search box ranking. No contradiction exists; the description enriches the annotation-driven expectations.

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 tightly structured: a one-sentence purpose, a note about output depth and follow-up, then concise Args and Returns blocks. Every sentence earns its place — no padding or repetition of the schema verbatim (except the Args section, which is acceptable for clarity). Front-loaded with the core purpose, it's 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (two params, shallow results), the description covers all essentials: what it does, what it returns (count and the specific user fields), and how to get more detail. It mentions the output shape clearly, which compensates for the output schema not being shown. With annotations handling safety and idempotency, little is missing for an agent to invoke this 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 coverage is 100%, with both parameters already well-described (e.g., query: 'Name or handle fragment, e.g. nasa or jane doe'; amount: 'Maximum profiles to return'). The description's Args section essentially restates the schema without adding new meaning. It provides no additional syntax, defaults, or constraints beyond what the schema already conveys, so it stays at the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 'Search Instagram for users by handle or display name' — a specific verb, resource, and search criteria. It clearly distinguishes this tool from instagram_search_posts, which searches a different entity, and names the exact fields returned. The purpose is 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 clear usage context: it returns the same ranked list as the app's search box and explicitly recommends instagram_get_user for deeper data ('Results are shallow; follow up...'). This guides an agent on when to use this tool versus alternatives, though it doesn't explicitly compare with other search siblings like instagram_find_person. Still, the follow-up guidance is actionable and clear.

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