get_v1_user_search_followers

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

Annotations already establish readOnly/openWorld/non-destructive, so the bar is lower, yet the description adds real operational context: `force=true` skips the account privacy check, the call is a live Instagram request, and it is billed per call. It does not mention rate limits or rate-limiting behavior, keeping it just short of a 5.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and the sibling disambiguation, then usage, parameter notes, and operational caveats. Every sentence earns its place with no repetition of structured fields.

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?

For a read-only search endpoint with annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema requiring return-value explanation, the description supplies everything needed: purpose, alternative, parameter guidance, and cost/privacy caveats.

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 only 33% (only `force` is documented), so the description carries the rest. It explains that `user_id` and `query` are the inputs and clarifies the meaning of `force` as skipping the privacy check, compensating well for the schema gap even though it doesn't detail query-matching syntax.

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 (search) and resource (an Instagram user's followers) with the scoping qualifier 'by name or username', and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling `get_g2_user_followers`. An agent can route between them without opening either 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?

Gives an explicit use case ('check whether specific accounts follow a user') and names the alternative tool for the contrasting case ('list all followers'). This is exactly the when/when-not/alternative guidance the dimension asks for.

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