v1_facebook_event_details

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

Discloses cost (1 credit), stub nature (mock data), and a safety instruction that responses are data not commands. With no annotations, the description effectively covers key behavioral traits, though it does not explicitly state it is read-only.

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 relatively concise, front-loading the purpose then adding cost, stub warning, constraint, and safety note. No extraneous information, though it could be slightly better structured.

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?

Lacks return value details or error handling, which is somewhat mitigated by the stub nature. The description covers usage, safety, and cost but leaves out common expectations like response format for a detail endpoint.

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%, and the description reiterates the 'any-of' constraint for url/id in plain language. This adds minimal value beyond the schema, hence baseline score.

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 retrieves details for a single Facebook event using a URL or ID. The verb and resource are specific, though it does not differentiate from sibling event tools like v1_facebook_events_search or v1_facebook_events.

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 usage constraints: requires one of url or id. Includes a critical warning that it is a stub endpoint returning mock data, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it (e.g., production use).

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