get_page_feed

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

No annotations provided, so description carries the burden. It mentions it includes own posts and others' posts, which is a behavioral detail beyond a simple 'list feed'. However, it doesn't disclose pagination behavior, rate limits, or access token requirements, but it references the endpoint which helps. Given no annotations, this is acceptable but not extensive.

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?

One sentence, no fluff, and provides the key distinction (own + others) and the endpoint reference. Well front-loaded.

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 output schema exists (context signal) but not provided, so we can't rely on it. With 0% schema description coverage and no annotations, the description could do more to explain response structure or pagination. However, for a list endpoint, this might suffice, but typical hidden aspects like pagination (since 'after' exists) aren't addressed. Slightly under-complete.

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 0%, but the description doesn't explain any parameters explicitly beyond the endpoint. It implicitly covers 'page_id' via 'Page's feed', but doesn't explain 'after', 'limit', 'fields'. However, defaults are given in schema, and the description mentions the endpoint which hints at context. Baseline is 3 due to low coverage, but description adds minimal value.

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 what the tool does: lists the Page's feed, including own posts and posts/links from others, with reference to the Graph API endpoint. It distinguishes from siblings like get_page_posts and get_page_tagged_posts by mentioning 'feed' which combines both, but doesn't explicitly name those siblings.

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 use for retrieving a Page's feed, and distinguishing from get_page_posts and get_page_tagged_posts is implicit through the term 'feed', but no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives or when not to use it.

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