search_pages

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose meaningful traits — a logged-in session is required and which credential set gets selected — but says nothing about pagination, rate limits, or failure behavior, and 'search' gives no indication of read scope beyond the implicit read.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then prerequisite, then the optional parameter detail. No filler, though the ~/.facebook-mcp/accounts/<account>/ path spelling is verbose for what it conveys.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained, and the auth prerequisite is covered. The notable gap is the undocumented 'limit' parameter, which appears in neither the description nor the schema, and no indication of how many results or pagination behavior to expect.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It documents 'q' (with an example) and 'account' (credential path plus default), which is worthwhile, but 'limit' is never mentioned and neither 'q' nor 'account' syntax is fully specified beyond the example.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Search Facebook pages by keyword') and gives a concrete example query. The resource 'pages' implicitly separates it from search_people, but the description never names that sibling or other alternatives, so differentiation is left to inference.

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?

Usage is implied by the purpose plus the stated prerequisite ('Requires a logged-in session'), but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no pointer to alternatives like search_people for a different entity type.

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