Get Page Conversations

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the behavioral trait of requiring 'pages_messaging permission', which is beyond annotations. However, it lacks details on pagination behavior, rate limits, or response structure, which would enhance transparency.

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 concise, using two sentences and a brief Args list. It is front-loaded with the purpose, and every sentence adds value. No unnecessary information is present.

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 tool lacks an output schema, so the description should explain return values or response format. It does not mention the response_format parameter (defined in schema) or describe the structure of the returned conversation list. This omission leaves the agent underinformed for a list tool.

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 low (25%), with only response_format having a schema description. The tool description provides basic context for page_id, limit (default 20), and after (pagination cursor), but largely repeats schema info. It does not fully compensate for the missing schema descriptions of other parameters.

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 lists conversations in a Facebook Page inbox. The verb 'lists' and resource 'conversations' are specific, and the scope 'Facebook Page inbox' distinguishes it from similar tools like meta_get_conversation_messages or meta_get_instagram_conversations.

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 mentions the required permission 'pages_messaging', providing a prerequisite. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide any 'when not to use' guidance. The usage context is implied but not detailed.

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