Profile

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

Despite annotations declaring readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, the description adds crucial context: 'Potentially consumes paid API credits; requires confirm=true' and clarifies that 'Read-like POST requests do not publish to social platforms.' It also warns about a known data quirk (media_count may be null). It does not mention rate limits or caching behavior beyond the schema's own cache_max_age explanation, but the credit-consumption warning 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 return payload, then caveats, then usage. Every sentence carries information (field list, use cases, data quirks, credit warning). Slightly dense with the multi-clause caveat sentence, but 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?

No output schema, so the description compensates by enumerating returned fields (bio, counts, posts, engagement, related profiles) and warns about a known data-quality issue (media_count null / batch-only). It covers the read-like-POST publishing caveat and credit cost. Missing: explicit mention of what cache_max_age does, though the schema covers it.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all five parameters (trim, handle, account, confirm, cache_max_age). The description reinforces 'requires confirm=true' and the credit cost, but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb+resource: 'Retrieves comprehensive public Instagram profile information' with a detailed enumeration of returned fields (biography, bio links, counts, verification, picture URLs, recent posts, related profiles). Distinguishes from sibling instagram_basic_profile and instagram_posts by naming the fuller scope, and explicitly routes to instagram_profile_post_count for post totals.

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 use-case contexts ('account overview, audience analysis, or discovering similar creators') and explicitly routes to 'Profile Post Count' when total post count is needed. Does not, however, contrast against the very similar sibling instagram_basic_profile or instagram_posts, leaving the agent to infer which profile endpoint to select.

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