Insights de Páginas do Facebook

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that metrics are aggregated in user-defined ways but does not explicitly mention the read-only nature, data limitations, or output format. The description is essentially a noun phrase, leaving important behavioral traits like whether it returns raw or processed data, or whether any side effects exist, implicit.

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 concise: one sentence plus a list of relevant examples. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, and the example metrics are useful without adding unnecessary detail. It earns its place, though it could be slightly more explicit about the action.

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?

With 9 parameters and no output schema, the description is relatively sparse. It does not describe the structure of the returned data, pagination, or any operational constraints. The rich schema compensates for parameter understanding, but the lack of output context makes it harder for an agent to anticipate the result format and overall tool behavior.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds some value by giving example metrics (page_follows, page_views_total) and aggregation contexts (month, account, portfolio), but it does not materially enhance understanding beyond what the schema already provides for each parameter.

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 clearly identifies the tool as providing Facebook Pages organic metrics with flexible aggregation options (by month, account, or portfolio) and gives concrete examples. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like instagram_insights by explicitly focusing on Facebook Pages, but it lacks a direct action verb such as 'retrieves' or 'lists', making it a noun-phrase description rather than a clear statement of 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?

The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it name any sibling tools or describe exclusions. The specificity to 'Facebook Pages' and 'organic metrics' implies usage contexts, but without explicit before/after guidance, an agent may be unsure which insights tool to choose.

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