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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, openWorld, non-destructive), so the description earns credit for adding non-obvious operational context: the $0.004 per-request billing cost and the downstream handoff of the id. It does not describe return fields or rate limits, but the cost disclosure is meaningful value beyond structured data.

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 purpose, then the chaining instruction, then the cost. Every sentence earns its place with zero 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?

For a one-parameter resolver with no output schema, the description covers purpose, downstream usage, and cost. It could be slightly more complete by sketching what the returned location object contains (name/type alongside the id), but nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 query parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description's phrase 'city, region or country' loosely broadens the accepted input types beyond the schema's examples, but adds no format or constraint detail beyond what the schema already provides.

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 (resolve) and resource (place name → Facebook location IDs), which is distinct from the sibling search_* tools that return content. An agent can tell this is a lookup/resolution step, not a content search, without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent what to do with the output: pass the returned id as location_id to search_facebook_posts or search_facebook_events. That is strong chaining guidance, though it stops short of stating when not to use it (e.g. when you already have a location_id).

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