What Meta has pushed to Hermoso

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

Annotations already declare read-only and non-destructive, but the description adds critical behavioral details: the empty-feed ambiguity, the need to check meta_webhook_status, and the fact that Hermoso restarts rebuild the feed from a durable mirror with only recent history. This is beyond the annotations and essential for correct interpretation of results.

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 longer than average but each sentence contributes: it starts with the core purpose, provides a motivational contrast, specifies scoping, and then gives a critical warning about empty feeds. The all-caps warning is attention-grabbing but not wasteful. It is well-structured and front-loaded, earning a high score despite its length.

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 covers the tool's input, output nature (events with arrival times), scoping rules, and the empty-feed edge case. Given there is no output schema, the description sufficiently explains what to expect. The limit and field parameters are already documented in the schema, and the description adds the needed behavioral context. Nothing essential is missing.

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 provides 100% coverage with clear descriptions for each parameter (field, limit, pageId). The tool description does not add additional meaning or context beyond what the schema states; it mentions event types that map to field values but adds no new semantic detail. Hence the 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 states the tool's function explicitly: it lists Page events Meta pushed to Hermoso, enumerating event types (comments, mentions, lead forms, DMs) and noting arrival times. It also specifies the scope (Pages the brand can see) and distinguishes it from manual checking. This is a specific, non-tautological statement that clearly differentiates the tool from other list tools.

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 on when to use the tool — to learn about events as they happen rather than when someone checks — and includes an explicit conditional: if the feed is empty, check meta_webhook_status to disambiguate subscription vs. no events. It does not explicitly name alternative tools for other scenarios, but the usage context is sufficiently clear.

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