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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the mutating, non-idempotent, open-world nature is covered. The description adds only that this is an asynchronous Builder task submission, without saying what side effects occur, whether auth/quota applies, or how the resulting task is tracked.

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?

Front-loaded with the trigger condition, but the first sentence is a stuffed keyword list (Facebook 活动 / Facebook 活动信息 / Facebook event / 活动列表 / 活动搜索结果) that largely repeats itself before the actionable 'submit a Builder task' statement appears.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description is the only place to explain that this returns a task handle rather than event data, and to link to scraper_task_status / scraper_task_result for polling. It implies async submission but leaves that essential follow-up workflow unstated.

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% – url, file_name default, and the spider_id enum are all documented in the schema itself. The description merely repeats the two spider_id values and adds no format or selection semantics beyond what is already there, so 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+resource: submits a Facebook event collection Builder task, and names the two supported spider modes. This clearly separates it from siblings like facebook_post, facebook_comment, and facebook_profile. It stops short of 5 only because the trigger-keyword enumeration adds length without sharpening the distinction further.

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?

Gives explicit trigger conditions (user wants Facebook events / event lists / event search results combined with collect/scrape/fetch verbs), which is real when-to-use guidance. It does not state when NOT to use it, nor how to choose between the two spider_id modes (the schema carries that instruction).

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