Get Page Events

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

The description adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations already provide. readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false already convey the safety profile, and the description merely restates the read-only nature. It does not mention pagination, time filtering behavior, or any authentication requirements.

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 a single purpose sentence followed by a compact Args list, with the purpose front-loaded and no filler. The Args section is somewhat redundant with the schema, but it is brief and easy to scan, so the overall structure is effective.

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 list tool with read-only annotations and schema-covered parameters, the description provides the core purpose and parameter meanings. The absence of an output schema is mitigated by response_format in the schema, which tells the agent the result will be markdown or JSON. It lacks explicit routing guidance against sibling list tools, but nothing essential for invoking the tool is missing.

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 Args section covers three of four parameters and adds 'Facebook Page' context for page_id, but limit and time_filter descriptions mostly mirror the schema's types, defaults, and enums. response_format is omitted from the description, though the schema provides its description. With schema description coverage at 25%, the description partially compensates but does not add significant semantic depth.

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, resource, and scope: 'Lists events created by a Facebook Page.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like meta_get_posts (posts vs. events) and meta_create_event (create vs. list). No ambiguity about what the tool does.

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—use this when you want to list Facebook Page events—but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or mention any exclusions. There is no direct comparison to similar list tools like meta_get_posts or meta_get_published_posts.

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