ghl_ad_fb_page_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds value by specifying the exact endpoint URL, version header, and OAuth scope (adPublishing.readonly), which provide concrete behavioral and authorization details beyond annotations. No contradictions.

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 concise, with four lines covering title, summary, endpoint, and OAuth scope. It avoids redundancy and is easy to parse. Minor improvement could be structuring as bullet points, but overall it is efficient.

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 simple read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers core purpose, endpoint, and authorization. However, it omits any details about the return format, pagination, or expected response structure, which could be helpful for an agent. Given the tool's low complexity, it is minimally adequate.

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?

Input schema has 100% parameter description coverage (locationId and fetchExisting both have descriptions). The description does not add any extra meaning or usage details for these parameters, so it meets the baseline without further enhancement.

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 'Get Facebook pages' and 'Retrieve Facebook pages associated with the connected account,' clearly identifying the resource (Facebook pages) and action (list/retrieve). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like ghl_ad_fb_page_delete or ghl_ad_fb_page_instagram_account_list, which operate on different aspects of Facebook pages.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the endpoint and OAuth scopes are given, there is no mention of prerequisites, limitations, or exclusion criteria. The context from sibling tools implies this is for listing pages, but no direct comparison or when-not-to-use advice is provided.

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