Inspect a Meta access token

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

With no annotations, the description covers key behavioral traits: the endpoint's authentication method (APPID|APPSECRET as access_token), the effect of omitting input_token, and the return fields. It does not mention read-only nature, but that is implied.

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 effective sentences with no fluff. Information is front-loaded, starting with the HTTP method and endpoint, then listing return fields and special behavior.

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 no output schema, the description adequately lists the return fields. It covers the core functionality and authentication context. Could mention error handling for invalid tokens, but not essential.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description adds meaning to the parameter 'input_token' by stating it is optional and defaults to the server's configured token. This supplements the empty schema description.

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 the tool inspects a Meta access token and lists the returned fields (token type, app_id, expires_at, scopes, is_valid). It distinguishes from sibling tools which focus on ads, pages, Instagram, WhatsApp, etc.

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 explains when to use (to inspect a token) and the behavior when input_token is omitted. It also notes the requirement for FB_APP_ID and FB_APP_SECRET. It lacks explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the sibling tools serve different purposes.

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