ad_manager_fb_get_pages

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description is not required to restate safety. However, it adds no behavioral context, such as whether it returns all accessible pages, requires authentication, or has pagination. Given the tool is a read operation, the description should clarify the scope or return behavior but remains silent.

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 description is just three words, which is under-specified, not concise. It saves space but at the cost of all meaningful content. A concise description should pack essential information into few words; this only restates the tool name.

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 no output schema and no mention of return format or filters, an agent lacks context on what to expect. The description does not explain that this retrieves pages linked to a Facebook ad account or how locationId and fetchExisting affect results. This is incomplete even for a read tool, though annotations cover safety.

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 descriptions cover both parameters (locationId and fetchExisting) at 100%, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds nothing beyond this. The fetchExisting schema description is vague ('Fetch existing pages flag') and would benefit from elaboration, but that is a schema issue, not a description failure.

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 verb 'Get' and resource 'Facebook pages' are clear, and the tool name also reinforces it. However, it does not specify the scope (e.g., for an ad account) or differentiate from siblings like ad_manager_fb_get_pixels or ad_manager_fb_get_ad_accounts. Still, the purpose is unambiguous on its own.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus other ad_manager_fb_get_* tools. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions. An agent must infer usage solely from the name and description.

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