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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds nothing about what happens when the post is missing or inaccessible, whether private posts fail, or what a successful read returns — for an open-world read tool that is a real gap.

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?

One short sentence with no padding, but it is under-specified rather than efficient: the single clause carries the whole burden and leaves the agent guessing.

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?

With no output schema, the description is the only place to learn what a successful call returns (post body, author, timestamps, media), and it says nothing. Two parameters, one required, are fully covered by schema, but the return shape and failure modes are undocumented.

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 100% and the post_id property already documents the <author_id>_<post_id> pattern and its sources, including the 'not a URL or author ID alone' exclusion. The description merely restates the author-prefix idea without adding format or edge-case detail beyond the schema.

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 reads more like a statement about an identifier format ('full resolved Facebook post ID, including author prefix') than a description of what the tool does. It never says it retrieves a post's content, and it is easily confused with facebook_resolve_post or facebook_list_user_posts, both of which also deal with post IDs.

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?

There is no indication of when to call this versus facebook_resolve_post, facebook_list_user_posts, or facebook_list_post_comments. The sibling set is dense with post-related tools and the description offers no routing guidance at all.

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