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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention any side effects, rate limits, pagination behavior, output structure, or whether the search is read-only. The schema already covers parameter descriptions, but the description adds no information about what happens when calling the tool (e.g., result format, potential errors, billing implications beyond what schema mentions).

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose. The optional location scoping is placed second, and the pointer to the sibling tool is efficient. There is no fluff or redundant detail.

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 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not state what the returned data looks like (list of posts with fields), how pagination works (pages param is billed per page but no indication of what a page contains), or any caveats about sentiment analysis. The agent would have to guess the response format, which is a significant gap for a search tool.

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 all 7 parameters already have descriptions. The description adds value only for location_id by pointing to search_facebook_locations as the resolver, which is helpful but not present in the schema. It does not explain date formats, pagination semantics, or how sort_by interacts with date filters. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the load.

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 clearly states the action ('search Facebook posts'), the scope ('across all of Facebook'), and the optional location scoping via location_id, which also points to the sibling search_facebook_locations tool. This distinguishes it from other Facebook search tools (pages, videos, events) without requiring schema inspection.

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 gives one explicit usage hint: use location_id to scope results, and resolve it via search_facebook_locations. However, it does not explain when to choose this tool over alternatives like facebook_page_posts (for a specific page) or search_facebook_videos. The 'across all of Facebook' phrase implicitly contrasts with page-specific tools, but it is not explicit about exclusions or preferred contexts.

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