facebook_group

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that it fetches only public data and conditions the privacy setting and member count on the group exposing them without joining. This is a useful behavioral caveat, though it omits potential error cases or rate limits.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action, and every clause adds distinct information: input formats, returned fields, and access constraints. There is no fluff or redundancy.

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 single-parameter read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers what data is returned, acceptable input forms, and the caveat about private groups. This is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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?

The schema already fully describes the single 'group' parameter (numeric id, vanity name, or full URL). The description repeats this same information without adding new parameter-level context. With 100% schema coverage, the description provides no added semantic value, so 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 clearly states 'Get Facebook group details' as the primary purpose, listing specific data fields (name, cover photo, stable group id, privacy setting, member count). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like facebook_page, which handles pages, and facebook_marketplace_item, which handles marketplace items.

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 implies when to use the tool (whenever group details are needed) and describes accepted input formats (numeric id, vanity name, URL), but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like facebook_page or state when not to use this tool. Guidance is clear but not explicit.

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