get_page_audience

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It does so by stating the output shape: subscriber count per segment, sorted descending. It also implicitly identifies this as a read-only operation despite lacking an explicit annotation. It could add context about access-token requirements or pagination, but for a simple audience profile tool, the return behavior is clearly covered.

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 compact: one purpose sentence, one parameter sentence, and one result sentence. Every sentence earns its place, and the most important information is front-loaded. The use of backticks for 'breakdown' is clear and low-noise.

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?

Given only two parameters, an output schema present, and a simple read-only audience-profile operation, the description is complete enough. It explains the resource, the allowed breakdowns, the return metric, and the ordering. The output schema removes the need to document the exact return structure.

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. It meaningfully explains the 'breakdown' parameter by listing its allowed values: country, city, age_gender, or locale. The 'page_id' parameter is not explicitely described, but the opening sentence establishes it as a Facebook Page, and the schema's property title 'Page Id' provides adequate basic meaning. This is sufficient compensation for a two-parameter tool.

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 resource: Facebook Page subscriber audience profile. It goes beyond the tool name by specifying that it returns subscriber counts broken down by country, city, age_gender, or locale, and explicitly says results are sorted from largest to smallest. It differentiates at least from Instagram-audince tools by saying 'Page Facebook', though it doesn't explicitely distinguish from audience_overview or get_page_insights.

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 implies the tool is for Page audience-segment analysis because it states the breakdown dimensions and the returned metric ('nombre d'abonnés'). However, it provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusions relative to siblings such as audience_overview, get_page_insights, or get_ig_audience_demographics. The agent must infer suitability from the breakdown options.

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