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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, destructive=true, idempotent=false, and openWorld=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that this is an async Builder task submission (提交...任务), which is useful context, but it never explains the task lifecycle, that results must be fetched later, or what the destructive hint actually means in practice.

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?

It is only two sentences and front-loaded with a purpose statement, but the first sentence is a long keyword-enumeration block (个人主页/个人资料/profile/信息 + five verbs) that is repetitive rather than informative for an agent. The useful content is a single sentence; the rest is padding.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description does not say that this returns a task handle whose result must be retrieved via siblings such as scraper_task_result or scraper_task_status. For a task-submission tool with destructive/openWorld annotations, that missing lifecycle context is a meaningful gap.

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% and both parameters are documented in the schema, including the url non-empty requirement and the file_name default. The description only restates the fixed collector identifier and adds no format or syntax detail beyond the schema, 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?

The second sentence states a specific action (提交/submit) and resource (Facebook 个人主页采集 Builder 任务) with a fixed collector ID, which lets an agent identify it against siblings like facebook_post or facebook_comment. However, the first sentence is keyword-trigger routing text rather than a purpose statement, so the actual purpose is buried and requires the reader to parse past it.

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 a trigger condition (user needs FB profile info combined with collect/scrape/crawl/fetch verbs), which implies when to use it. But it names no alternatives and provides no when-not-to-use guidance, e.g. that it should not be used for posts, comments, or events, despite many facebook_* siblings existing.

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