Profile Photos

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

Annotations already flag readOnlyHint=false/openWorldHint=true/destructiveHint=false. The description adds real value beyond them: credit consumption, the confirm=true gate, and the two-field pagination requirement (next_page_id AND cursor). It also reconciles the readOnlyHint=false by explaining read-like POSTs do not publish.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then returns, then pagination, then cost/confirmation. The middle enumeration of return fields is slightly dense but justified because no output schema exists. No filler sentences.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly documents the returned fields (photo_id, accessibility_caption, viewer_image, thumbnail, url), plus pagination and credit/confirm behavior. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 baseline is 3. The description exceeds it by explaining the pagination contract — both next_page_id and cursor must come from the previous response — which the schema's one-line param descriptions do not convey.

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 (photos from a public Facebook page), which cleanly distinguishes it from sibling tools like facebook_profile_posts, facebook_profile_reels, and facebook_profile. The added note that it hits a public page gives scope immediately.

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?

Provides operational context (consumes paid credits, requires confirm=true) but never states when to use this versus alternatives such as facebook_profile_posts or facebook_profile_reels. Usage is implied by the resource name rather than explicitly routed.

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