Get Facebook Page Details

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds the specific return fields (name, category, follower counts, Instagram link) but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits like permission requirements, rate limits, or error behavior. Since annotations cover the safety profile, this is adequate but not exceptional.

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, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and avoids redundancy. The 'Args' section is a minor structural oddity but still readable. Every sentence serves a purpose, and no filler exists.

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 read-only tool with only two parameters and no output schema, the description adequately conveys the return content. However, it lacks any mention of when to choose this tool over siblings and does not discuss potential errors or response format selection, leaving some gaps for an agent to discover.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, so page_id and response_format are already documented. The description simply repeats page_id's meaning without adding new context (e.g., how to obtain the ID, formatting constraints). The response_format parameter is not mentioned in the description, but it is fully defined in the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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's function: 'Gets detailed information about a specific Facebook Page' and lists what data is returned. It distinguishes from list tools like meta_list_pages by focusing on a single page, though it does not explicitly name alternatives. Overall, it is specific and unambiguous.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings such as meta_get_page_picture, meta_get_page_events, or meta_list_pages. It does not mention exclusions or selection criteria, leaving the agent to infer that this is for general page details. This is a clear gap.

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