Get Visitor Posts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond that, such as the scope of 'visitor posts' on the wall. It does not disclose pagination behavior, ordering, or the fact that only public visitor posts may be returned. With annotations covering the safety profile, the description adds some value but lacks richer behavioral details.

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, front-loaded with the purpose, and includes a compact args list without fluff. Every sentence adds value; there is no redundancy or extraneous detail.

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?

Given that there is no output schema and the tool is a read operation, the description covers the core purpose and two key parameters. However, it lacks explicit guidance on pagination (after) and the availability of response_format (though schema covers it). It also does not mention any authentication or rate-limit specifics, but these are likely common across the tool family. Overall, it is adequate but leaves some edge details to inference.

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 schema coverage is only 25% (only response_format has a description). The description adds clarifications for page_id ('Facebook Page ID') and limit ('Max results (1–100, default 20)'), which are useful. However, it omits 'after' (pagination cursor) and 'response_format' (though response_format is described in schema). Thus it partially compensates for the low schema coverage but not fully.

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 ('posts published by visitors'), and location ('Facebook Page wall'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like meta_get_posts (which likely returns all posts) and meta_get_published_posts (likely page's own posts). The purpose is unambiguous and instantly separates it from the many other tools.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it should be used specifically for visitor posts as opposed to page posts, nor does it note any exclusions or prerequisites. An agent would have to infer usage from the name and title, which is not explicit.

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