meta_pages_read

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=true, idempotent=true, openWorld=true, destructive=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: it defines each action's output content (subscription events, profile name/picture) and the diagnostic framing, which tells the agent this is an inspection workflow. It does not mention permissions needed on the page or failure modes, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 alternatives and the action breakdown are front-loaded in a short, dense block with no filler. The action entries are run together as a single stream, which slightly hurts scannability but wastes no words.

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?

With six parameters, no output schema, and two conditional actions, the description does the necessary work: it names each action's purpose, its required identifier, and what it returns. Remaining gaps (mode/origin behavior, agentId) are covered by the input schema, so an agent has enough to call it 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?

Schema coverage is 67% and the schema already documents mode, origin, pageId and userId. The description's main added value is per-action parameter mapping ('Needs: pageId' vs 'Needs: userId'), clarifying which parameters are conditional on the chosen action — information the flat schema does not convey. It says nothing about agentId, origin, or mode, so the gain is partial.

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 opening sentence gives a specific verb and resource ('Diagnose a connected Facebook page (Messenger / Instagram)') and then enumerates the two concrete actions with what each returns (webhook subscription events; user name and picture). It also distinguishes this tool from get_agent_channels and create_channel_connect_link, so an agent can place it in the right workflow without opening the schema.

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?

It names two explicit alternatives with their selecting conditions ('To list connected pages use get_agent_channels; to connect one use create_channel_connect_link') and gives a trigger for check_subscriptions ('use when the agent does not receive Messenger / Instagram messages'). The get_profile action has no equivalent when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, so routing is strong but uneven across the two actions.

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