get_page_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the default page_id fallback as a specific behavior, but does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, does not describe authentication requirements (beyond referencing set_facebook_credentials), and does not mention error handling or side effects. The output schema covers return structure, but other behavioral aspects remain undisclosed.

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, with the purpose front-loaded and a necessary note about the default page_id following. Every word earns its place; no fluff or redundancy. It is appropriately sized and efficiently structured.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (two optional parameters, output schema present), the description covers the core purpose and the default behavior. The output schema defines return values, so that is handled. However, it omits an explanation of the fields parameter and does not explicitly state that credentials must be set beforehand, though that is implied by the default reference. It is adequate but not thorough, especially given the many sibling tools.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains page_id's default behavior (fallback to stored credentials) but does not explain the fields parameter at all. The fields parameter's purpose and how it controls the returned data are left solely to the schema's default string, which is not self-explanatory. Thus, it only partially covers parameter semantics and fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 details about a Facebook Page' with specific examples (name, about, category, fan_count), establishing a clear verb and resource. It is not explicitly differentiated from sibling tools like get_page_posts, but the focus on metadata fields implies it is for page info, not content. The 'etc.' broadens scope appropriately without being vague.

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 get_page_insights or get_page_posts. The only usage note is about the default page_id fallback, which is a parameter behavior, not a usage context. It neither states when to use this tool nor when not to, leaving the agent to infer from the tool name and examples.

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