Search within a Group

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint true and destructiveHint false, so the description's 'Read-only' adds little beyond the annotation. However, it adds behavioral context by noting it uses Facebook's native in-group search and is 'much cheaper' than scrolling, which gives the agent cost/benefit awareness. No disclosure of potential limitations or return format, so additional behavior is not covered.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. The second sentence provides a usage guideline and the third repeats a safety clue. No redundant content beyond the read-only note, which is harmless.

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?

Given the schema fully documents parameters and annotations cover safety, the description provides sufficient context for a search tool: scope (inside one group), trigger (known keyword), and cost comparison. The absence of an output schema is not addressed, but the tool's name and purpose imply it returns posts; for a low-complexity search task, this is adequate.

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 covers all 5 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the description doesn't need to explain them. The description's mention of 'keyword' aligns with the query parameter but adds no semantic value beyond the schema.

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?

Description clearly states the tool uses Facebook's in-group search to find posts matching a query inside one group. The phrase 'inside one group' differentiates it from global search tools like search_facebook and search_groups, and the comparison to 'scrolling the whole feed' sets it apart from browse_feed.

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?

Provides explicit context: 'Much cheaper than scrolling the whole feed when you already know the keyword' tells the agent when to use this tool (known keyword for a single group) and that it's cheaper than browsing. It does not name explicit alternative tools, but the scope and situation are clear.

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