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

Beyond the readOnly/openWorld annotations, the description discloses important edge cases: 18+ and private gates still return HTTP 200 with account_status and isPrivate values, missing pages return 404 with accountDoesNotExist, talkingAboutCount is nullable, and include_gated_profile only affects gated profiles. It also mentions credits and caching, though the cost statements conflict in places ('at least 10 Nexscope credits' versus '1 credit per request'), which slightly muddies the behavioral picture.

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?

The content is poorly front-loaded and bloated: pricing text, a support-removal email, a repeated caching paragraph, and a stray 'View Pricing' fragment interrupt the field and gate descriptions. Much of this duplicates schema or documentation content and makes the definition harder to scan.

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 tool with four parameters, no output schema, and several gated/error states, the description is fairly complete: it enumerates returned fields, explains gated and not-found responses, and clarifies the optional flags. The noisy pricing and caching text is unnecessary but does not leave major operational gaps.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters. The description adds some meaning for include_gated_profile and get_business_hours, but largely repeats the cache_max_age and include_gated_profile schema text rather than adding new operational detail.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Retrieves public Facebook page details' and enumerates the returned fields and adLibrary data. It clearly distinguishes the profile-details tool from sibling tools for posts, photos, reels, and events, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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?

Usage is implied by the field list and the mention of optional flags, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings such as social_facebook_profile_posts or social_facebook_group. The include_gated_profile explanation gives some conditional guidance, but broader when-to-use context is absent.

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