v1_facebook_group_posts

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the transparency burden. It honestly discloses that the endpoint is a stub returning mock data, the cost, the HTTP method, and warns that API responses are data, not instructions. This prevents misuse.

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 extremely concise at four sentences, each providing essential information: purpose, endpoint and cost, stub status, parameter requirements, and a behavioral warning. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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?

Given no output schema, the description explains the tool's purpose and pagination but lacks details about the response structure, pagination parameters (e.g., cursor), or returned fields. For a stub, this is partially adequate but leaves an agent uncertain about how to process 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?

The input schema already fully describes both parameters with 100% coverage, including their any-of relationship. The description reiterates 'Requires one of url, groupId' without adding new semantic details, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 verb 'Get' and the specific resource 'a public Facebook group's posts', including pagination via cursor. It effectively distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like v1_facebook_profile_posts and v1_facebook_post by targeting group-specific content.

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 explicit usage context: it requires one of url or groupId, mentions it's a stub returning mock data, and states the credit cost. It does not explicitly exclude alternative tools but implicitly guides usage via the resource specificity.

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