Facebook ratings

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

The description adds detailed error-handling behavior beyond the readOnlyHint annotation: rate-limit handling with retry timing, not-found behavior, and guidance to check structuredContent.errorCode and .retryable. This is valuable behavioral context not available in the annotation or 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 front-loaded with the main purpose, then uses a structured bullet list for error handling. Every sentence earns its place; there is no filler or redundancy. The short, organized format makes it easy to parse.

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 an output schema present, the description does not need to explain return values. It covers the core behavior and error handling comprehensively. However, it does not mention any usage boundaries or specific scenarios beyond the storeId branch, leaving a small gap in contextual completeness for a tool that has many sibling tools.

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%, with all parameters described clearly (from/to as dates, storeId as optional, response_format as enum). The description merely restates the storeId behavior already in the schema, adding no new meaning. Baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema fully documents parameters.

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 resource ('Facebook ratings') and the action ('Fetch'), with specific scope: all locations or a single location if storeId is provided. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like pinmeto_get_facebook_insights, which target insights rather than ratings.

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 gives context on how to fetch a single location vs all locations via storeId, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like get_google_ratings or get_facebook_insights. Usage is implied rather than explicitly guided.

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