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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds that the tool lists businesses based on the provided Facebook access token, and clarifies that 'Business' and 'Community' are interchangeable. However, it does not describe expected response format, pagination, or error behaviors. The additional context is modest given the annotation coverage.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and then provides essential usage guidance. Each sentence adds value, though the line 'Business and community refer to the same thing and are interchangeable' is slightly redundant with the tool name and could be condensed. Overall, it is fairly concise given the complexity of prerequisites and restrictions.

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?

The description covers pre-conditions (permission checks, free business restriction, pre-call to check_business_tool_access) and provides clear next steps. However, it does not describe the output format or structure of the listed businesses, which is important since there is no output schema. The agent may not know what fields or identifiers to expect. Given the tool's complexity, this is a notable gap.

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?

The input schema has two required parameters (communityId, facebookAccessToken) with 0% schema description coverage. The description only mentions the Facebook access token implicitly, leaving communityId completely undocumented. No explanation is given for the parameters' formats, sources, or constraints. The description should compensate for the lack of schema descriptions but does not do so adequately.

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 'List Facebook businesses available to the provided Facebook access token' and clarifies that 'Business and community refer to the same thing and are interchangeable.' This clearly identifies the resource and action. However, the title 'List Business Facebook Businesses' is slightly confusing, and the description does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool list_business_facebook_businesses, though the name implies the distinction.

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?

The description provides excellent usage guidelines: it explicitly states to check business permissions before offering the tool, warns that FREE businesses cannot use it, instructs to call check_business_tool_access before collecting inputs, and specifies to show grace-period warnings and resubscribe links. It also tells the agent never to proceed when access is blocked. This covers when to use, when not to use, and an explicit alternative tool.

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