get_account_pages

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states the basic operation. It does not mention whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, pagination behavior, or whether it returns all pages or a subset. For a retrieval tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool, though it could benefit from a brief note on usage or behavior to improve completeness.

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 that an output schema exists, the description need not explain return values. However, with no annotations and a vague parameter, the description is only minimally adequate. It states the core action but lacks context about when to use it, its read-only nature, and how the parameter affects the result. For a tool with sibling alternatives, more contextual differentiation 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?

The schema has 0% description coverage for the single parameter 'ad_account_id'. The description mentions 'ad account' but does not explain the parameter's format, whether it's required (it's optional with a default of null), or what happens if omitted. Since parameter semantics are not elaborated beyond the schema, but there is only one parameter and its name is self-explanatory, a baseline 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 states a specific verb (Get) and resource (Facebook pages connected to ad account business), which is clear enough to distinguish this from siblings like get_ad_accounts or get_account_info. However, the phrasing 'ad account business' is slightly ambiguous – it's unclear whether 'business' refers to a Business Manager entity or is just descriptive.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given siblings like get_ad_accounts and get_account_info, an agent would benefit from knowing the specific context in which retrieving connected pages is appropriate (e.g., for ad creative assignment). No when-to-use or exclusion criteria are provided.

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