Page Info

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already communicates non-mutating behavior, and the description's 'Get' wording aligns with it. The description does not add extra behavioral context such as auth requirements, rate limits, or data freshness, though that is less critical for a simple read-only info tool.

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 a single concise sentence with the action front-loaded and no redundant words. Every part 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 parameterless read-only tool, the description is complete: it states the action, resource, and key output fields. The readOnlyHint annotation covers the safety profile, and no output schema is needed to understand what the tool returns.

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?

The tool has zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, so there is no parameter ambiguity. Per the 0-param baseline, the description does not need to add parameter details; mentioning the returned fields adds minor extra clarity.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and a clear resource ('ManyChat account/page info'), then lists the included content (name, status, connected channels). No sibling tool covers page-level metadata, so it is easily distinguished from the list, subscriber, and send tools.

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 when account/page-level information is needed, but it provides no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over alternatives or any exclusions. For such a self-contained tool, the implied context is adequate but not fully explicit.

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