List saved replies

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavior the annotations cannot: that this is a local store requiring no Facebook API call, and that the downstream send substitutes {{page_name}} and transmits text verbatim. The verbatim/placeholder substitution is a genuinely useful non-obvious trait.

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?

Two tightly packed sentences with no filler; the local/no-network scope is front-loaded, then the consumption path, then the filter. Every clause carries information.

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 two-optional-param read-only list tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers origin, consumption, and filtering. It stops short of describing the shape of returned entries (id, name, text, tags), which would help an agent chain into the send tools without guessing.

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 coverage is 100%, so both `tag` and `profile` are already documented in the schema. The description's 'Filter by `tag`' mostly restates the schema and adds no syntax or matching nuance; `profile` is not mentioned at all in the description. 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List the Page's local saved replies') and immediately qualifies it as local templates kept on this machine with no Facebook call. This distinguishes it cleanly from remote-listing siblings like facebook_list_posts or facebook_list_labels.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent how to use the results: pass the id as `saved_reply_id` to facebook_send_message, facebook_reply_to_comment or facebook_private_reply. That is concrete routing to the consuming tools. It does not state when to avoid this tool (e.g. versus authoring a new template with facebook_save_reply), so it falls short of a full when/when-not treatment.

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