Search Facebook Pages

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint and destructiveHint, and the description reiterates 'Read-only'. It adds the return fields, which is useful behavioral context, but does not disclose pagination behavior or rate limits. Given the annotations, this is moderate added value.

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 short sentences, front-loading the core purpose. Every word earns its place; the only redundancy ('Read-only') reinforces the annotation without bloating it.

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 4 parameters fully covered by the schema and no output schema, the description compensates by listing return fields. It is mostly complete, but lacks guidance on alternatives and edge-case behaviors, which keeps it from a 5.

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 full descriptions in the schema (100% coverage), so the description does not need to explain them. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 uses a specific verb-resource pair ('Find Facebook Pages') and lists the returned fields (name, URL, category, follower label, verification badge). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like search_groups by targeting Pages specifically.

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 establishes clear context: this tool is for searching Facebook Pages. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or state when not to use it (e.g., vs search_facebook), so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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