Get Promotable Posts

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the eligibility-filter behavior, but it does not disclose pagination behavior, return shape, or any rate-limit considerations. This is adequate but not rich.

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 short and front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by a compact args list. It has minimal filler, though the args section partially repeats schema type information. Overall it is concise and well-organized.

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 list operation, the description covers the essential purpose and core parameters, but it misses 'after' and 'response_format', and there is no output schema to compensate. It is sufficient for a minimal call but has clear gaps around pagination and output controls.

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 coverage is only 25%, so the description carries a heavier burden. It explains page_id and limit, but completely omits 'after' (a pagination cursor) and 'response_format' (output control). An agent reading only the description would not know how to paginate or request JSON output, leaving important parameters underdocumented.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Gets posts that are eligible for boosting/promotion on a Facebook Page.' This clearly identifies the tool's purpose and distinguishes it from siblings like meta_get_posts or meta_get_published_posts by emphasizing the promotion-eligibility filter.

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 makes the use case clear: use this when you need posts that can be boosted or promoted. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use the tool, so it stops short of a 5, but the context is unambiguous enough for an agent to route correctly.

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