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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the '5 points per returned record' pricing model, which is a cost signal the agent needs before setting max_items, plus the shape of each record.

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?

A single compact sentence listing returned fields plus a short pricing clause; nothing redundant. Front-loaded with the resource being fetched.

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?

There is no output schema, so the field enumeration is load-bearing and does its job; the pricing note covers the cost dimension that matters for a metered, up-to-1000-record scraper. Pagination behavior and how newer_than interacts with max_items are the only minor gaps.

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%, with url, max_items (up to 1000, default 20) and newer_than all documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the return-field listing, so 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?

States a specific resource (Facebook page reviews/recommendations) and enumerates the fields returned (recommendation flag, text, date, author, tags, likes, photos, comments), so an agent knows exactly what it fetches. It does not explicitly contrast with run_facebook_comments or run_facebook_posts, but the resource naming is distinctive enough for disambiguation.

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 versus run_facebook_comments, run_facebook_posts, or run_facebook_pages, and no mention of prerequisites like needing a page URL/ID. The agent must infer the appropriate context.

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