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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only that results are limited to public pages/posts, which is modest extra context; it says nothing about rate limits, result counts, or pagination.

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?

Two tight sentences with zero filler; the core purpose is front-loaded and the return summary follows immediately. Every clause earns its place.

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?

For a simple one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description usefully names the returned fields (page/author, text, link), which is what an agent needs to decide whether the results fit its task. It falls short only on selection guidance versus sibling search tools.

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% for the single required 'query' parameter, so the schema already documents it as 'Page name or keyword'. The description's 'by name or keyword' phrasing merely echoes the schema without adding format, syntax, or disambiguation guidance.

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 verb (Search) and resource (Facebook public pages/posts) with a scope qualifier ('public') and input mode ('by name or keyword'). This distinguishes it from the ads-oriented sibling search_facebook_ads, though it does not name any sibling explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent infers it should call this when it needs to find Facebook pages or posts by keyword. There is no statement of when to prefer it over alternatives such as meta_ads_list_page_posts or search_facebook_ads, and no prerequisites or exclusions.

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