Get Facebook Page posts

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so safety needs no restatement. The description earns credit by disclosing the output shape (one row per post with named fields) in the absence of an output schema. It does not mention rate limits, historical depth limits, or cost behavior (left to the schema's max_charge_usd).

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?

Two sentences, no filler, purpose first and return shape second. Nothing is redundant with the name or title.

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 a read-only, zero-required-parameter collection tool with full schema coverage and annotations, the description plus schema cover what an agent needs to call it correctly and interpret results. Minor gaps: no note on pagination/limits or what happens when a Page is unavailable.

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 the descriptions there are strong (date cutoff semantics, charge cap, 1–500 post limit, one-item list convention). The tool description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, so baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource (get posts from public Facebook Pages) and immediately scopes it to public Pages, which distinguishes it from profile/group reading. The second sentence enumerates the returned fields, so an agent knows exactly what data it gets without opening a schema.

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?

Usage is only implied by the word 'public' — the agent can infer this is a read/collection tool with no alternatives to choose from (no siblings). Explicit exclusions (groups and personal profiles not supported) exist only in the schema's 'pages' description, not in the tool description itself.

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