Facebook Group Info

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false. The description adds non-obvious context the annotations cannot convey: potential paid-credit consumption, the confirm=true gate, and the fact that this is a read-like POST that does not publish to social platforms, plus the 'when Facebook exposes them' caveat on moderators/admins.

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?

Three front-loaded sentences cover returns, input selection, and behavioral caveats with no filler. The long field enumeration in sentence one is dense but informative rather than redundant, since no output schema exists.

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 tool with no output schema, the description enumerates the returned fields, covers both input alternatives, and discloses the credit/confirm behavior. Nothing an agent needs to select or invoke it correctly appears to be missing.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds a constraint the schema does not encode: url and group_id are alternatives and one should be supplied (the schema marks neither required). That is genuine semantic value beyond the field descriptions.

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 (fetches) and resource (a Facebook group's About-page info), then enumerates the exact fields returned. It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling facebook_facebook_group_posts, which covers posts rather than group metadata.

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?

Gives concrete invocation guidance ('Provide either url or group_id') and a precondition (confirm=true). It does not explicitly say when to prefer this over sibling tools such as facebook_facebook_group_posts, so it falls short of full when/when-not guidance.

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