Get Page Call-to-Action

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 operation. The description adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations provide, but it does not contradict them.

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 two sentences plus a minimal Args line. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no filler. Every part serves a clear function.

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, the description conveys the basic action. However, there is no output schema and the description does not indicate the shape or contents of the returned CTA data. This is a moderate gap for an agent that may need to process the response.

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 description provides meaning for page_id, which lacks a description in the schema. response_format is already documented in the schema with its default and purpose. Together, schema and description fully cover the parameters, with the description compensating for the schema gap.

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 states a specific verb ('Gets'), resource ('call-to-action button'), and scope ('configured on a Facebook Page'). This clearly differentiates it from siblings like meta_get_page or meta_get_posts because the resource is unique.

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 usage when you need the CTA button, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use. Since no sibling tool retrieves the same resource, the context is clear, but explicit routing is absent.

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