social_media_posting_get_facebook_page_group

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond repeating the verb. It does not disclose what data is returned, whether it returns a list or a single item, if there is pagination, or any authentication requirements. The description fails to leverage the annotations to enrich behavior understanding.

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 a single short phrase, which is concise and free of fluff. However, it is so minimal that it borders on under-specification. It doesn't elaborate on expected behavior or context, but it is not verbose. The sentence does not earn its place because it adds little value; it is concise but not sufficiently informative.

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?

The tool is simple with two parameters, but the description is incomplete. It does not state what the return value is, whether it returns a list of pages or a specific group, or any prerequisites like authentication. There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of explaining the result. It fails to provide needed context.

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 parameters (accountId and locationId) are adequately described in the schema. The tool description adds nothing about parameters, so it provides no additional meaning beyond the schema. Since the schema already handles parameter semantics, a baseline score of 3 is 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 'Get facebook pages' clearly specifies a verb ('Get') and a resource ('facebook pages'). It is better than a tautology, but does not explicitly mention 'page group' as in the tool name, and it doesn't distinguish itself from the similarly-named sibling 'social_media_posting_get_instagram_page_group'. Still, it identifies the target platform and action clearly enough for an agent to understand the basic purpose.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as sibling tools for Instagram, LinkedIn, or other platforms. It does not mention any conditions, exclusions, or context that would help an agent choose this tool over others. The agent is left without direction on selection.

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