search_pages_by_name

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It discloses some behaviors: access_token can be omitted and 'will use cached token if not provided', and search_term is optional with a defined fallback. However, it does not mention authentication requirements, rate limits, permissions, or response structure beyond 'JSON response with matching pages'.

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 uses a structured Arg/Returns format that is easy to scan. It is concise with no superfluous content, though the docstring formatting adds some lines. Overall it earns its place.

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 search tool with 3 parameters and an output schema, this description is sufficiently informative. It covers all parameters and the return type, plus the account_id format. Minor gaps exist (no pagination, no error behavior), but these are not critical for a straightforward search operation.

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 0%, so the description compensates. It explains all three parameters: account_id with format 'act_XXXXXXXXX', access_token with cached-token fallback, and search_term with behavior when omitted. However, it lacks details on search_term matching semantics (e.g., exact vs substring, case sensitivity).

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: 'Search for pages by name within an account.' The verb 'search' and the resource 'pages' with the qualifier 'by name' make the purpose specific and distinguish it from siblings like 'get_account_pages' or 'search_ads_archive'.

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 implies usage context by explaining optional parameters (e.g., 'returns all pages if not provided'), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or mention any exclusions. No direct references to sibling tools.

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