datasets_facebook_pages_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does explain the data provenance (business-search enumeration, domain-scoped scans, Wikidata seeding, hydration from the About tab), which adds context about data freshness and scope. However, it doesn't disclose pagination limits (page_size * page must be <= 10000 is only in the schema), rate limits, or what the return shape looks like.

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 compact and efficiently packs the dataset scope, field list, provenance, and sort options into two sentences. The sort enum is embedded a bit awkwardly but doesn't waste space. It is appropriately sized for a rich search tool.

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 description covers the what and the data provenance well, and the schema covers all parameters. However, without annotations or an output schema, the description doesn't address result format, pagination behavior, or typical query patterns. For a 16-parameter search tool with no output schema, this is a moderate 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%, so the schema already documents all 16 parameters. The description mentions the key searchable fields (website, email, phone, WhatsApp, category, like count) and lists the sort enum, which reinforces the schema but doesn't add substantial new meaning. Baseline 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 clearly identifies the resource (Facebook Pages dataset) and the action (search), listing the fields available (website, email, phone, WhatsApp, category, like count). However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this from the sibling tool datasets_facebook_pages_item or datasets_facebook_pages_facets, so an agent might not know which of the three Facebook Pages dataset tools to pick.

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 explains what the search covers but doesn't provide explicit when-to-use guidance vs alternatives like datasets_facebook_pages_item or datasets_facebook_pages_facets. The search semantics are implied by the name, and the sort enum is listed, but no exclusions or alternative-selection advice is given.

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