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

Annotations already declare destructive=true, readOnly=false, openWorld=true, and idempotent=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that this submits a Builder task with a fixed collector ID, but it does not explain authentication needs, async behavior, rate limits, or what happens after submission.

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 sentences, front-loaded with trigger conditions followed by the action and fixed collector identifier. The synonym list aids routing, and there is no extraneous content.

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 should explain what the tool returns. It states a Builder task is submitted but does not mention that a task ID or status result is returned, nor does it reference sibling tools such as scraper_task_status or scraper_task_result for retrieving results. This is a meaningful gap for a task-submission tool.

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 both url and file_name are fully documented in the schema. The description adds nothing about parameter syntax or format beyond naming the fixed collector ID, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 states a specific action (submit a Facebook post collection Builder task) and resource (Facebook posts), and fixes the collector identifier to facebook_post_by-posts-url. It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like facebook_comment or facebook_profile by focusing on posts, though it does not explicitly name siblings.

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?

It gives explicit trigger conditions: when the user needs Facebook post information combined with collection/scraping/extraction verbs. This is clear usage context, but there is no guidance on when not to use it or which alternative tools to consider.

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