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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing the authorization and feature-gating requirements (admin role, facebook_marketing feature), which are not visible in the annotations.

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 short fragments with no filler and the core action front-loaded; the constraints follow immediately. The opening sentence duplicates the tool title verbatim, which is minor redundancy, but nothing needs trimming.

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 single-record getter with full schema coverage and annotations carrying the safety profile, the description supplies the missing pieces: permissions and feature gating. The only gap is that no output schema exists and the description says nothing about what the form record contains, though the fields enum hints at the shape.

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 description coverage is 100% with only 2 parameters, so the schema already documents id and fields fully. The description adds nothing about parameter meaning or the fields filter, which is the expected baseline for a well-documented schema.

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?

"Get a lead form" gives a specific verb (get) and resource (lead form) that separates it from list_facebook_lead_forms, get_facebook_lead, and update_facebook_lead_form. It does not explicitly name those siblings, so the differentiation rests on the tool name rather than the description itself.

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?

"Administrators only" and "Requires feature: facebook_marketing" are effective preconditions that tell the agent when the call is permitted. However, there is no guidance on when to prefer this single-record fetch over list_facebook_lead_forms or how it relates to get_facebook_lead.

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