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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context about how records were sourced and hydrated, but omits pagination limits, result-count constraints, and refresh semantics that matter for a search tool.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the core action and resource, with no redundant filler. It is appropriately sized, though the field enumeration slightly pads the sentence.

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?

With 16 optional parameters and an output schema present, the description needn't explain return values, and annotations cover safety. However, for a complex filtered search it omits pagination/limit guidance and any when-to-use routing, leaving clear 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 fully documents all 16 parameters; baseline is 3. The description's mention of searchable fields (website, email, phone, WhatsApp, category, like count) loosely maps to the boolean filters but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema.

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 (searches) and resource (public Facebook Page contact records) and enumerates the field set (website, email, phone, WhatsApp, category, like count). It distinguishes itself as a search tool but does not explicitly contrast with the sibling datasets_facebook_pages_item or datasets_facebook_pages_facets.

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?

The description never states when to use this tool versus the item/facets siblings, nor what conditions favor it. It gives provenance (Wikidata discovery, About-tab hydration) but that is data origin, not usage guidance or exclusions.

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