meta get organic content enrichment

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds a meaningful caveat that results are content insights and must not be interpreted as organic-only, which goes beyond the annotations. However, it does not mention provider permission requirements for insights or pagination behavior, though those are partly covered by the schema and annotations.

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 two sentences with no filler. The main action and scope are front-loaded, and the caveat is placed second. Every word earns its place, making it an exemplary concise definition.

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 gives a clear purpose and a key caveat, and the schema plus output schema are detailed. However, with 11 optional parameters and no required fields, an agent may need more guidance on which parameter combinations to use or when to apply this tool relative to the many similar getters. It is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 100%, so all 11 parameters are already thoroughly documented. The description only summarizes the resource types and mentions 'optional insights', which maps to includeInsights, but adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is correct when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clear verb ('Read'), specific resources (Facebook Page posts, Instagram media), and the enrichments (URLs, native periods, optional insights). It explicitly distinguishes these as 'content insights, not Ads Insights', which differentiates it from advertising-focused siblings.

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 when-to-use guidance or reference to alternative tools. The only comparative statement is a caution about not inferring an organic-only breakdown, which is interpretive rather than a routing instruction. With 40+ sibling tools, an agent receives no direction on when to choose this over meta_get_page_posts or meta_get_insights.

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