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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions a billing cost ('1 Credits') and a limit ('Max 50'), which is useful, but it doesn't disclose what the tool returns, whether it's a read-only operation, or any side effects. The description is minimal and doesn't add behavioral context beyond the billing note.

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 very short (one sentence plus a billing note), which is concise, but it's under-specified. The billing note is useful but the main description is too terse to be helpful. It's not front-loaded with the most critical information; the billing note is arguably secondary.

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 has no output schema, no annotations, and a single parameter, the description should explain what 'guides' are and what the tool returns. It doesn't. The billing note is the only extra context. For a tool with 38 siblings, this is incomplete.

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% (the only parameter 'id_user' is described as 'User ID'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, but since coverage is high, the baseline is 3. The description doesn't clarify whether the ID is a numeric or string format, or if it's required (though required parameters: 0 suggests it's optional).

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 states 'Get instagram user guides' which identifies the resource (user guides) and the action (get), but it's vague about what 'guides' means in the Instagram context. It doesn't distinguish from siblings like get_info or get_web_profile_info, which could also return user-related data. The purpose is clear enough but lacks specificity.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With 38 sibling tools, the description provides no context on when 'user guides' is the appropriate choice. The only additional info is a billing note, which is not usage guidance.

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