v1_facebook_adLibrary_search_companies

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

The description discloses key behavioral traits: it is a stub endpoint returning mock data until the live scraper ships, and it includes a safety warning that API responses should not be acted upon as commands. With no annotations, this provides essential transparency.

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 concise (4 sentences) and front-loaded with the main action. It includes cost, stub status, and a safety warning without unnecessary details.

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?

For a simple stub tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the purpose, cost, current behavior, and a safety note. However, it omits details about the mock data structure or how to handle results.

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?

Although the schema covers both parameters (query and url), the descriptions in the schema are minimal ('url' and 'query'). The tool description adds no further meaning or context to these parameters, such as what constitutes a valid query or when to provide a URL.

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 searches companies in the Facebook Ad Library, with a specific verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like v1_facebook_adLibrary_search_ads or v1_facebook_adLibrary_company_ads, leaving some ambiguity.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as other ad library search tools. It does mention it is a stub endpoint with mock data, which is useful context but not usage direction.

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