Search Facebook Groups

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description explicitly states 'Read-only — it never sends a join request,' which adds specific behavioral context. It also notes that membership status is shown 'where visible,' providing useful nuance about data availability. This adds value without contradicting annotations.

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 long, front-loaded with the primary purpose and return fields, and ends with a key safety guarantee. Every sentence earns its place with zero redundancy.

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 essential aspects: purpose, returned data, and read-only behavior. Since there is no output schema, the explicit mention of return fields is valuable. It could further mention session requirements or pagination nuances, but these are covered by the schema and sibling tooling, making it sufficiently 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?

The input schema already provides complete descriptions (100% coverage) for all four parameters, including constraints and defaults. The description does not add additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema offers, so the baseline of 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?

The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Find Facebook Groups matching a query.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from sibling tools like search_facebook and search_pages by focusing on groups and enumerating the returned fields (name, URL, privacy, member count, membership status).

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 clear context for when to use this tool (searching for groups) and implies a safe read-only operation, but it does not explicitly discuss alternatives or when not to use it. The sibling list shows other search tools, but the description alone doesn't draw that comparison.

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