get_g2_user_following

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, non-destructive), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely non-structured context: 'Live request to Instagram, one billed request per page', which signals cost and rate behavior the agent cannot infer from annotations. It stops short of describing response shape, but the pagination/billing disclosure is substantive.

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?

Front-loads the core purpose, then usage routing, then parameter mechanics, then the operational note and endpoint. Four compact sentences with zero filler; every clause carries distinct information.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by explaining the one-page-per-call pagination model and where the cursor comes from in the response. For a two-parameter paging tool this is nearly complete; a brief note on what a page contains or when the list ends would close the remaining gap.

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 0%, so the description must carry the load, and it does: it explains passing user_id and, critically, that page_id is the cursor from the previous response for the next page. That is meaningful semantics beyond the bare 'Page Id'/'User Id' titles. Minor gap: no explanation of cursor lifetime or expiry.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List accounts an Instagram user follows') and immediately differentiates itself from siblings by naming get_v1_user_search_following and get_g2_user_followers. An agent can identify this tool without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly states when to use it ('page through the following list') and names the alternatives with the conditions that select them ('to look for specific names' vs 'for the user's followers'). This is exactly the when/when-not guidance the dimension calls for.

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