Search Facebook Places

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond those: the q-or-center required precondition, the ability to combine them, and the return payload (Place IDs, names, addresses, coordinates). No contradiction 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?

Purpose is front-loaded and organization is clear (purpose → use case → Args → Returns → note). The Args list largely restates schema defaults, which is slightly redundant, but the inline examples earn their place, and there is no fluff.

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 6-parameter search tool with no output schema, it is complete: it documents all major params with examples, states return fields, and clarifies the required precondition and combination semantics. The only minor gap is not documenting response_format, which the schema covers adequately.

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 83%, above the 80% baseline threshold. The description supplements the schema with concrete examples for q ('Central Park'), center ('40.7829,-73.9654'), and categories (['FOOD_BEVERAGE', ...]), plus default and max values for limit and distance, adding genuine meaning. The one undocumented parameter, response_format, is well-described in the schema itself.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Searches for Facebook Places') and the two search modes (name or coordinates). It also names the downstream purpose — getting a location_id for tagging posts, Instagram photos, or Threads — which cleanly separates it from search tools like meta_search_targeting_geolocations or threads_search.

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?

Provides clear when-to-use context ('Use this to get a location_id for tagging...') and the 'Provide at least q or center' requirement. It does not name explicit exclusions or direct alternatives, but the use-case framing is specific enough to route an agent correctly.

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