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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, open-world), and the description adds value beyond them: explicit per-page billing ($0.008) and the shape of the result ('video metadata and play counts'). It stops short of pagination or rate-limit behavior.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and identifier, then return content, then cost. Each sentence carries distinct information with no filler.

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 usefully names what comes back (metadata and play counts) and discloses billing. For a 3-parameter, annotated read tool this is nearly complete; only pagination/volume limits are unaddressed.

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%, so the schema already documents pages and get_sentiment in detail. The description adds only the provenance hint for delegate_page_id ('from facebook_page_details'), which is a small but real addition over the schema text.

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+resource ('Get videos from a Facebook page') and the keying identifier (delegate_page_id), so an agent knows exactly what is returned. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the close siblings facebook_page_reels or search_facebook_videos, which is the only gap.

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 implies usage by pointing to facebook_page_details as the source of delegate_page_id, a useful prerequisite. However, it never states when to prefer this over facebook_page_reels or search_facebook_videos, so routing between near-identical siblings is left to inference.

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