get_page_posts

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It does mention the required permission (pages_read_engagement) and pagination semantics (after, before, since, until), but does not cover rate limits, error handling, or what happens on invalid page_id. It also states the return shape as a dictionary, but not deeply. This is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 well-structured: purpose and permission are front-loaded, followed by a clear Args list and a brief Returns note. It is a bit long but every sentence earns its place given the number of parameters. No fluff.

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 7-parameter read tool with an output schema (not shown but referenced), the description covers all inputs, the permission requirement, and a high-level return summary. It lacks details on error behavior or rate limits, but these are often secondary for a read operation. Overall, it gives an agent enough to call it correctly.

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 fully explain each parameter. It does so thoroughly: page_id, fields with a detailed list and defaults, limit, pagination cursors, and date filters with format hints. This significantly adds meaning beyond the bare schema, which only has types and null defaults.

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 states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('published posts from a Facebook Page'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like get_page_insights and get_promotable_posts. It leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions or conditions that would route an agent to a different tool (e.g., get_promotable_posts for boosted content). The usage context is only implied by the tool's name and description.

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