meta_ads_page_posts_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states 'Read-only' and clarifies it only lists published posts, which are key safety and scope traits. However, it does not describe pagination behavior beyond the limit parameter or mention potential ordering, leaving minor ambiguity about how many posts are returned and in what order.

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, front-loaded with the core action and resource, followed by a compact list of returns, then a clear read-only indicator, and finally a practical use case. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or filler.

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 is complete for a listing tool with well-documented parameters. It enumerates the return fields (compensating for the lack of an output schema), explains the read-only nature, and provides context for its use in boosting workflows. It also names the exact companion tool, making the operational context fully clear.

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%, and each parameter (limit, page_id, account_id) has a detailed description including defaults, formats, and required access. The tool description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline score of 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 clearly states 'Lists published posts on a Facebook Page' with a specific verb and resource, and enumerates the exact return fields. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly mentioning meta_ads_page_posts_boost, making its purpose unique and unambiguous.

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 gives an explicit use case: 'Use this to find organic posts to boost via meta_ads_page_posts_boost' and provides a rationale (boosting organic high-performers is cheaper). This clearly guides when to use this tool versus alternatives like running a new ad, effectively serving as a decision rule.

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