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

Annotations flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, and the description goes well beyond that by disclosing the state transition (reset to `received`), that Meta is re-read asynchronously in the background, the 24-hour rule that limits older leads to contact refresh only (no WhatsApp follow-up), and the admin/feature authorization requirements. These are non-obvious side effects an agent could not infer from 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?

Front-loaded with the action, followed by the state transition, the temporal caveat, and the authorization gates. Every sentence carries distinct information (transition semantics, 24h limitation, permissions) with no filler.

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 one-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers preconditions, side effects, timing, and permission requirements thoroughly, and 'in the background' signals asynchronous behavior. It stops short of saying what the call returns or whether a job can be tracked, which is a minor gap.

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% for the single `id` parameter, so the schema already documents it fully. The description adds only that the lead must be in `failed` or `contact_only` state, which is a precondition rather than added parameter meaning; baseline 3 applies.

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 (reprocess) and resource (Facebook lead), then defines exactly what reprocessing means operationally: reset to `received` and refetched from Meta. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_facebook_lead or list_facebook_leads without ambiguity.

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?

Explicitly scopes when the tool applies (only a `failed` or `contact_only` lead), which implicitly excludes other lead states, and layers on the two hard prerequisites: **Administrators only** and **Requires feature:** `facebook_marketing`. An agent can determine eligibility before calling.

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