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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns sensitive token information and implies read-only behavior. However, it does not mention rate limits or security considerations.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with the verb 'Liste' (lists) and resource 'Pages Facebook'. No wasted words.

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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is quite complete, covering purpose and output content. It lacks details on authentication or error handling, but is adequate for a simple list.

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?

There are no parameters, and the schema coverage is 100%. The description adds value by specifying the output fields (ID, name, token), which is useful beyond the empty schema.

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 lists Facebook pages managed by the account and specifies the returned fields (ID, name, Page Access Token). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like facebook_post_video and facebook_page_insights which have different purposes.

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 context of listing pages is clear, and the sibling tools indicate this is for listing, not posting or insights. However, no explicit guidance on when to use or avoid this tool is provided.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the tool retrieves statistics, which implies a read operation, but lacks disclosure of behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination, or whether data is real-time. Minimal behavioral context.

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 a single sentence, front-loading the verb and resource. It is concise with no wasted words. However, given three parameters, slightly more detail could be included without harming conciseness.

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?

The description is terse and lacks output schema. It does not mention the return structure, any limitations (e.g., date range, data freshness), or how to interpret results. For a simple retrieval tool, more context would help the agent understand what 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 coverage is 100%, so each parameter already has a description. The tool description adds examples of metrics (views, reach, engagement), which overlaps with the metrics parameter. No additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides; baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 Facebook Page statistics including views, reach, and engagement. The verb 'Récupère' and resource 'une Page Facebook' are specific. The examples differentiate it from sibling tools like facebook_list_pages (listing) and facebook_post_feed (posting).

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 implies usage when page statistics are needed, but no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, prerequisites, or exclusions. Sibling tools are functionally distinct, so the context is somewhat implied.

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

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It only states the basic action (creates a post) without disclosing side effects, authentication needs (pageAccessToken), or what happens on success/failure. Minimal behavioral disclosure.

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?

Single sentence, no redundant words. It is efficiently concise but does not front-load key information (e.g., required parameters). Could be slightly improved without becoming verbose.

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 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too minimal. It omits return value, authentication context (pageAccessToken, pageId defaults), and necessary prerequisites. Leaves significant gaps for agents.

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 parameter descriptions. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond mentioning the optional link ('avec lien optionnel'), which is already in the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 it publishes a text post (with optional link) on a Facebook Page feed. It uses a specific verb ('Publie') and resource ('fil d'une Page Facebook'), and implicitly distinguishes from sibling 'facebook_post_video' by specifying 'texte'.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'facebook_post_video' for video or 'repost_telegram_to_facebook' for republishing. The description only states what it does, not when or when not to use it.

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

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

No annotations are provided; the description only states the action. It does not disclose required permissions, error handling, rate limits, or that it creates a new post, leaving significant gaps for an agent.

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?

Single sentence, no fluff, efficiently conveys purpose and key parameters.

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?

No output schema, and description lacks explanation of return values, success/failure conditions, or errors. With 5 parameters and no annotations, it is insufficient for robust agent decision-making.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds modest context (e.g., file path from Telegram download) but does not add meaning beyond schema fields.

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 (publishes), resource (local video on Facebook Page), and context (downloaded from Telegram). It differentiates from siblings like facebook_post_feed and repost_telegram_to_facebook.

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 implies usage when a local video is available from Telegram, but does not explicitly state when to use versus alternatives like facebook_post_feed for non-video content.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the composite nature (download + post), but does not mention potential side effects, authentication requirements, or error handling. It adds some value beyond schema but lacks depth.

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?

Two concise sentences in French effectively convey the tool's purpose. Every word adds value; no fluff 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 the composite nature (6 parameters, no output schema), the description is too brief. It does not explain return values, error conditions, order of operations, or authentication prerequisites. It barely meets minimum viability.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage for all 6 parameters. The description does not add new information beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline score of 3 applies.

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 it downloads a Telegram video and republishes it to a Facebook Page with custom description. It uses a specific verb-resource combination and implicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like telegram_download_video and facebook_post_video by being a composite workflow.

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 implies usage when both download and post are needed, but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives. No exclusions or context about prerequisites are provided.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states the action without disclosing essential behaviors such as file overwrite policy, download failure handling, required permissions, rate limits, or any side effects. This is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's full impact.

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 exceptionally concise with two sentences, each serving a clear purpose: stating the action and explaining the follow-up use. 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 the tool's simplicity (2 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description effectively conveys its purpose and return value. However, it omits details about the return format (beyond 'path') and error scenarios, which would improve completeness.

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 existing parameter descriptions. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 action (downloads a Telegram video to local disk) and the specific resource (video from a chat message). It also distinguishes from siblings by mentioning that the path is passed to facebook_post_video, highlighting its role in a republishing workflow.

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 clear context for usage by explaining the returned path's intended use with facebook_post_video. However, it does not mention alternatives like the sibling 'repost_telegram_to_facebook' when that would be more appropriate, nor does it specify when not to use this tool.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It discloses the return fields (messageId, caption, filename, size, duration) but omits critical details such as required authentication, rate limits, error handling, or whether the tool is read-only (no destructive hint). The term 'récentes' (recent) is vague without reference to the 'limit' parameter.

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 consists of two short, front-loaded sentences that efficiently convey the tool's function and next step. Every sentence earns its place, with no wasted words or redundant information.

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 list tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It lists return fields, which compensates for the missing output schema, and provides workflow guidance. However, it lacks edge-case behavior (e.g., no videos found, pagination, error conditions), which keeps it from a perfect score.

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 has 100% description coverage for both parameters ('chat' and 'limit'), so the description adds minimal extra value. It re-emphasizes the chat context but does not provide additional syntax or behavior details beyond what the schema offers, resulting in no significant enhancement.

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 lists recent videos from a Telegram chat, channel, or group, and specifies exactly what is returned (messageId, caption, filename, size, duration). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like telegram_download_video and Facebook-specific tools by focusing on listing, and the name matches the functionality.

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 directly advises the user to subsequently use telegram_download_video with the selected messageId, providing clear workflow guidance. It does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or compare it to alternatives, but given that all siblings are either download or platform-specific, the context is well implied.

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