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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It usefully discloses the 2-credit cost, that empty results and failures are never charged, and the cache behavior with cache=true. This goes beyond surface-level purpose and gives an agent actionable operational expectations, though it does not discuss rate limits or error response specifics.

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 a compact two-sentence structure: the first sentence conveys purpose and key output fields, and the second covers cost and caching. There is no filler or redundant elaboration; every clause contributes useful information.

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?

The tool is simple, has only two well-documented parameters, and no output schema, so the description's listing of returned fields partially compensates. It also covers costing and cache behavior, which are important operational details. It could be more complete by clarifying the shape of the response or handling of missing pages, but overall it is sufficient for the tool's complexity.

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 both url and cache parameters well. The description restates the cache behavior already present in the schema, adding no meaningful new parameter semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 identifies the resource as a Facebook page profile and lists specific returned data like likes vs followers, talkingAbout, category, website, and public email. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieves' or 'returns', and it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the similar sibling facebook_details.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as facebook_details or facebook_summarize. It mentions cache usage and credit cost, but offers no selection criteria or exclusions to help route an agent to the correct endpoint.

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