Profile Events

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it warns that the call 'Potentially consumes paid API credits; requires confirm=true' and clarifies that 'Read-like POST requests do not publish to social platforms.' This explains the confirm gate and mitigates the non-readOnly hint, which is genuinely helpful.

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 two sentences with zero waste, front-loading the core action and then appending the critical operational note about credits and confirm. Every sentence 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 tool with no output schema and full annotation coverage, the description covers the essential behavioral note (credit cost, confirm requirement) and clarifies the POST-vs-publish distinction. It could mention pagination via cursor or return format, but given annotations and schema completeness, it is largely sufficient.

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 schema already documents all four parameters (url, cursor, account, confirm). The description adds a note about confirm=true and paid credits but doesn't provide additional syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific verb+resource: 'Get the events of a public Facebook page', which is clear and distinct from siblings like facebook_events_events or facebook_profile_posts. It could be sharper about scope (upcoming vs past events, single page vs multiple), but the purpose is unambiguous.

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 by specifying 'public Facebook page' and mentioning confirm=true for credit consumption, but it doesn't state when to use this tool vs alternatives like facebook_events_events or facebook_events_search_events. No exclusions or alternative routing are given.

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