Get Page Ratings/Reviews

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, providing the safety profile. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the basic purpose—no mention of pagination behavior, return format, rate limits, or what data is included in the response. Since annotations cover safety but the description adds no extra behavioral details, it falls short of the baseline for tools with annotations.

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 one-sentence purpose followed by an argument list. It front-loads the main function. The argument list is somewhat redundant with the schema but acceptable. It is appropriately sized and structured for quick scanning.

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?

With no output schema and no description of return value structure, the agent cannot understand what the response contains. The presence of an 'after' parameter suggests pagination, but the description does not mention it. Additionally, the response_format default (markdown) is not clarified in the description (though schema provides it). The description is insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior and output.

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 only 25% (response_format is described). The description compensates by explaining page_id and limit ('Facebook Page ID', 'Max results (default 20)'), which adds value beyond the schema. However, it does not describe the 'after' parameter (pagination cursor), leaving that gap. The partial compensation but incomplete coverage yields a 3.

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 ratings and reviews for a Facebook Page.' This is a specific verb-resource pair that distinguishes it from sibling page tools like meta_get_page (page info) and meta_get_page_insights (analytics). The title reinforces this without ambiguity.

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 gives the basic purpose, implying it should be used when page ratings/reviews are needed. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare it to alternative tools such as meta_get_post_reactions or meta_get_page_insights. The usage context is implicit rather than explicit, earning a 3.

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