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 of this read-only search is covered. The description is consistent with those hints but adds almost nothing behavioral beyond the keyword/location scope, and says nothing about pagination handling or result volume.

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 no filler; the resource and the keyword/location scoping appear immediately. It is efficient, though the brevity borders on under-specification rather than sharp conciseness.

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?

An output schema exists and parameter coverage is complete, so the description needn't explain returns or inputs. However, for a tool sitting among five near-identical 'search' siblings, it omits the routing information an agent most needs to pick it correctly.

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 query, end_cursor, and location_uid are already documented in the schema. The description echoes keyword search and location filtering but adds no format or usage detail, 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Search for Facebook people/profiles') plus the scope (by keyword). It is clearly distinguishable from fellow search tools, but it does not name those siblings (facebook_search_pages, facebook_search_posts, facebook_search_videos) to differentiate 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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no routing to alternatives, despite four sibling search tools (people, pages, posts, videos) that an agent must choose between. The only hint is 'with optional location filtering', which is not a usage condition.

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