get_v1_user_search_following

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new operational context: it is a live request to Instagram, it is billed per call, and `force=true` bypasses the account privacy check. It stops short of describing result volume or pagination, which keeps it from 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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, then the alternative, then parameters and cost, ending with the endpoint. Sentences are dense and earn their place, though the mocked endpoint parenthesis adds little for an agent that already has the tool name.

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, 3-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, alternative, key parameter behavior, billing, and privacy-bypass semantics. Missing only return-shape hints (e.g., result limits or pagination), which are minor here.

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` carries a schema description, while `query` and `user_id` have none. The description partially compensates by clarifying that the query matches 'by name or username' and that `force=true` skips the privacy check, but it adds no format or constraint detail for `user_id`. With the low coverage, this lands at the baseline rather than above it.

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 (accounts an Instagram user follows) with a scoping qualifier ('by name or username'). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling `get_g2_user_following`, so an agent can route between the two 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 the selecting condition ('use it to check whether a user follows specific accounts') and names the alternative with its own purpose ('use `get_g2_user_following` to list all of them'). This is an explicit when-to-use / when-to-use-something-else statement.

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