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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the description is not the sole carrier. It adds two useful facts beyond the annotations: pagination is supported and each call costs 1 credit. It does not explain rate limits, auth requirements, or what happens with an invalid cursor.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the core capability front-loaded ahead of the pricing note. Nothing redundant.

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 no explanation, and the schema fully documents all four optional parameters. The description covers scope, pagination and cost, leaving only minor gaps such as the relationship between link and profile_id, which the schema already hints at.

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 link, limit, end_cursor and profile_id are all fully documented in the schema. The description's mention of pagination loosely maps to end_cursor but adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond what the schema already provides; 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get videos from a Facebook page') plus the pagination behavior. It is clearly distinguishable from facebook_get_group_videos and facebook_search_videos by the 'page' scope, though it does not name those siblings explicitly.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives such as facebook_get_page_reels or facebook_get_video_details. The only usage-relevant detail is the pricing line.

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