Search Facebook

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

The read-only behavior is already declared in annotations, but the description adds useful context that results are limited to what the Facebook UI actually renders for the user's account. This gives insight into result variability beyond the schema.

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 three short sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and contains no filler. Every sentence provides relevant 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?

The description covers the core purpose, safety, and a key limitation. There is no output schema, and the description mentions 'structured results' without specifying the structure, which is a minor gap. Overall, it is sufficient for a search tool with good annotations.

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 the schema fully documents all five parameters. The description only restates the result_type behavior already present in the schema enum, adding no additional parameter-level meaning.

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 tool performs a Facebook search and returns structured results, with result_type explicitly selecting the tab. However, it does not distinguish this from sibling tools like search_groups or search_pages, which are more specialized.

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 this is the general search entry point by mentioning the different tabs, but it does not explicitly state when to use this over the specialized sibling tools. There are no exclusions or alternative recommendations.

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