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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It communicates keyword search and optional place scoping, but says nothing about pagination/billing behavior, date filtering, result format, ordering, or limits. For a search tool with no output schema, this is a notable 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?

The description is one short sentence that front-loads the primary action ('Search Facebook events by keyword') and then adds the single most important optional modifier. Every word earns its place with no fluff.

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 5-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the core query and optional location scoping but omits the date-range options, pagination semantics, and what the response looks like. It is minimally viable but not fully complete for agent decision-making.

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%, so the schema already documents all five parameters. The description adds value for location_id by directing the agent to search_facebook_locations, though the schema already says the same thing, so it contributes limited new semantic meaning.

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 a specific verb ('Search'), a clear resource ('Facebook events'), and the matching criterion ('by keyword'). It also distinguishes itself from sibling Facebook search tools (pages, posts, videos, locations) by naming 'events' and by pointing to the companion location tool for place-scoped searches.

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?

It gives clear invocation context: search by keyword, and optionally scope to a place using location_id resolved via search_facebook_locations. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use this tool or contrast it with other facebbook search siblings, but the event-specific resource and location resolution guidance make the intended usage clear.

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