follower_growth

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only conveys 'daily evolution' and does not explain pagination, time range handling, token requirements, or whether it returns per-day deltas versus cumulative counts. The output schema may describe return fields, but the description itself adds little behavioral context.

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 short sentence with no wasted words, so it is concise. However, it is under-specified rather than efficiently complete, providing only a noun phrase rather than an actionable specification.

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 simple two-parameter query with an output schema, the description conveys the essential topic and lets the agent infer page_id and days, making it minimally viable. But the absence of usage guidance, behavioral details, and parameter semantics leaves meaningful gaps for an agent that must choose among many insight-related sibling tools.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters, but it only loosely implies page_id ('de la Page') and days ('quotidienne'). It does not describe the expected page_id format, the meaning or range of days, or the default behavior of 30 days.

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 core function: daily evolution of a Facebook Page's followers, which is specific and not a tautology. It identifies the resource and metric, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like get_page_insights or get_page_audience.

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 guidance is provided about when to choose follower_growth over the many sibling tools, such as get_page_insights, audience_overview, or account_summary. There are no stated exclusions, alternatives, or prerequisite conditions like required token permissions.

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