Open a Facebook Page

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false; the description reinforces this with 'Read-only — it will not follow or like the Page' and adds what the tool returns (Page metadata plus posts). This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 concise sentences with no filler. The main action and read-only nature are front-loaded, and every clause adds meaningful 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 read-only tool with strong annotations and full schema coverage, the description sufficiently covers purpose and return type. It does not describe response structure or pagination, but with no output schema and given the scope, it is adequately 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?

All 4 parameters have schema descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The tool description does not add parameter-specific context beyond the schema, which already explains limit, expand_text, and scroll_rounds.

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 the verb (open), resource (Facebook Page), and expected outcome (read visible posts, return metadata plus posts). The read-only clarification distinguishes it from sibling tools that interact (follow, like, comment, post).

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 usage for reading a page's posts without providing explicit when-to-use guidance or naming alternatives. The read-only statement indirectly suggests it over interaction tools, but does not say when to choose open_page over search_pages, browse_feed, or read_post.

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