get_account_pages

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It notes the optional access_token and cached-token fallback, giving insight into authentication behavior. It also states the return format (JSON). It could mention what happens when no token is available, but for a simple GET operation, this is adequately transparent.

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 well-structured with Args and Returns sections, front-loading the purpose. Every sentence provides useful information without unnecessary words.

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 tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, parameters, and return value. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly, especially given the explicit parameter format and caching note.

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 0%, so the description must fully compensate. It explains account_id format (act_XXXXXXXXX) and the optional access_token with caching behavior, adding meaningful context beyond the bare schema. Both parameters are effectively documented.

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 gets pages associated with a Meta Ads account, using a specific verb and resource. It naturally distinguishes itself from sibling tools like search_pages_by_name by focusing on account association rather than name-based 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?

The description provides clear context for when to use the tool: when you need pages linked to a specific Meta Ads account. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is unambiguous enough to infer the appropriate use case.

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