Get Page Automated Messaging Settings

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read. The description adds the prerequisite of needing page tokens from meta_list_pages, which is crucial context for successful invocation. It also discloses what the tool returns, giving a complete picture of the read behavior. No contradictions with annotations exist.

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, with a clear opening sentence stating the purpose. The Args/Returns lines are a bit redundant with the schema but serve as quick reference. The content is well-structured and front-loaded; it does not waste words on fluff. Slight redundancy in repeating page_id, but overall efficient.

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 two parameters and a schema that fully documents them, the description is sufficiently complete. It mentions the prerequisite call, its return content, and provides an argument list. It does not detail response structure, but the description summarizes what is returned; with no output schema, that is acceptable. Potential error scenarios are not covered, but for a read tool with annotations indicating safety, this is adequate.

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 100%, so both page_id and response_format are documented in the schema. The description only repeats page_id in its Args section and does not add any extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides. It omits response_format entirely from the description, but since the schema covers it, this is acceptable. This matches the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 that the tool gets the current automated messaging settings for a Facebook Page. It uses a specific verb (Gets) and resource (Facebook Page), and lists the exact settings returned (Instant reply, away message, greeting, ice breakers). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like meta_set_instant_reply, which write settings, so an agent can easily tell read from write operations.

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 explicitly states a prerequisite: 'Requires: meta_list_pages called first to load page tokens.' This gives a concrete condition for using the tool. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the read-only nature and the sibling setter tools make it clear this is for reading settings. The absence of an explicit 'when not to use' is a minor gap, but the context is strong enough.

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