search_pages_by_name

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions that 'access_token' is optional with caching behavior and 'search_term' is optional with fallback to returning all pages, which adds some behavioral context. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, pagination, error handling, or what 'matching pages' entails (e.g., format, fields). For a search tool with no annotations, this is insufficient.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. The 'Args' and 'Returns' sections are structured clearly, though slightly verbose. Every sentence adds value, but it could be more streamlined (e.g., combining optional explanations).

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 no annotations, 3 parameters with 0% schema coverage, and an output schema exists (so return values are documented elsewhere), the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic purpose and parameter semantics but lacks behavioral details like error cases, rate limits, or sibling tool differentiation. For a search tool in this context, it's adequate but has clear gaps.

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 compensate. It adds meaning for all three parameters: 'account_id' is explained as 'Meta Ads account ID (format: act_XXXXXXXXX)', 'access_token' as optional with caching, and 'search_term' as optional with fallback behavior. This provides useful semantics beyond the bare schema, but doesn't fully cover validation rules or examples. Baseline is 3 due to moderate compensation.

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 purpose: 'Search for pages by name within an account.' It specifies the verb (search) and resource (pages by name), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_account_pages' or 'search' (which might have broader scope). The purpose is clear but lacks sibling distinction.

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 doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get_account_pages' (which might list all pages without search) or 'search' (which might search across different resources). There's no context about prerequisites, timing, or exclusions.

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