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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral context of its own — no note on resolution failure behavior (invalid/private page), rate limits, or what the tool does when the URL does not resolve to a page.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the purpose and the input it operates on are stated immediately with no preamble.

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 an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and the single parameter is fully schema-documented. What is missing is the routing context in a sibling set of 40+ tools — an agent gets no signal about where this resolver fits in a page workflow.

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% and the schema already documents the link parameter with a concrete example URL. The description adds no additional meaning about accepted URL formats, handling of non-canonical URLs, or usernames without a full URL, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb (get), resource (Facebook page ID), and the input it derives from (a page URL), which is enough to distinguish it from get_page_details or get_page_posts. It does not, however, explicitly name or contrast with those siblings, so a 4 rather than a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many page-related siblings. An agent must infer that this is a cheap URL→ID resolver to run before calling get_page_details, and no exclusions (e.g., 'if you already have the numeric ID, skip this') are stated.

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