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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds the useful behavioral note that it returns UIDs for geo-filtering other endpoints, but doesn't describe pagination, rate limits, or result scope. With annotations, this is adequate but not rich.

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, front-loaded with the core action, then the return/usage note. Every clause is informative.

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 single-parameter search with a full output schema and readOnly annotations, the description covers purpose and the key output use case (UIDs for geo-filtering). It's nearly complete; only the exact return shape is left to the output schema.

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?

Only one parameter, and schema description coverage is 100% with an example (city, place, landmark). Baseline for one fully-documented parameter is 4; the description adds nothing beyond the schema but doesn't need to.

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 clear verb + resource (search Facebook locations by keyword), which is specific. Doesn't differentiate from siblings like facebook_search_pages or instagram_get_nearby_locations, but the resource 'locations' is distinct enough in name.

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 second sentence implies usage ('Returns UIDs for geo-filtering other search endpoints') but doesn't name a specific alternative or give explicit when/when-not criteria. A nearby sibling is instagram_get_nearby_locations, which isn't mentioned.

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