meta_get_organic_content_enrichment

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The phrase 'optional read-only insights' is the only behavioral hint. It does not address whether the whole operation is read-only, what permissions are required, how pagination works, or what happens when IDs are invalid or missing.

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 compact sentence with useful keywords and no filler. It is easy to parse and front-loads the core purpose, though the brevity comes at the expense of needed details.

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 an 11-parameter, 0-required tool with no annotations and no output schema, this one-liner is insufficient. It omits input-mode selection, pagination behavior, output shape, and usage boundaries, leaving the agent to infer too much from parameter names and sibling tool names.

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 only 64%, and the description adds almost no parameter-level meaning. It vaguely aligns with includeInsights through 'optional read-only insights' but does not clarify the roles of limit, cursor, pageId versus postIds versus mediaIds, or the includePagePosts and includeInstagramMedia toggles. It therefore does not compensate for the undocumented parameters.

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 names a specific action ('Enrich'), a clear resource scope ('Facebook Page posts and Instagram organic media'), and the kind of data returned (media URLs, permalinks, counts, attachments, insights). It is distinguishable from sibling tools like meta_get_page_posts, but it does not explicitly name an alternative or exclusion, so it falls short of a 5.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The description does not mention alternatives such as meta_get_page_posts or meta_get_insights_raw, nor does it state under what conditions an agent should prefer this tool over those. Usage context is only weakly implied by the word 'enrich'.

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