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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world). The description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: an administrator-only permission requirement and a feature-flag prerequisite, both of which affect whether the call will succeed. It stops short of return shape or pagination behavior.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action before the scoping detail and the preconditions. The opening 'List lead forms.' slightly restates the title before the more informative sentence, which is the only avoidable redundancy.

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 read-only, parameter-light list tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned (forms with routing and lead counts) and the access preconditions. Missing only optional detail like pagination or ordering behavior, which is minor here.

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% and the single optional 'fields' parameter is fully documented in the schema, so the description carries no additional parameter burden. Baseline 3 applies since the description neither supplements nor clarifies the fields selection semantics.

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 (List) and resource (Lead Ads forms), and adds scope detail: forms synced from the account's leads-enabled Pages, including routing and lead counts. This distinguishes it from the singular get_facebook_lead_form and from sync_facebook_lead_forms, though it does not name those siblings explicitly.

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?

Usage conditions are implied by the 'Administrators only' and 'Requires feature: facebook_marketing' preconditions, which tell the agent this is not callable by every principal. There is no explicit statement of when to use this versus list_facebook_leads or sync_facebook_lead_forms, so guidance stops short of routing.

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