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

Discloses the crucial async behavior (queues a background read, must poll), plus auth (admin-only) and feature-gate requirements that annotations do not capture. The annotations already carry the safety profile (destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false); the description's 'read' framing is slightly at odds with destructiveHint but can be read as reading from Meta while writing locally, so no hard contradiction.

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, front-loaded sentences with an immediately readable purpose, then mechanism, then constraints. No redundant or filler content.

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 zero-param, asynchronous tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential what/how-to-check/auth story. It could add how long the sync takes or what 'every leads-enabled Page' scope implies for rate limits, but it is largely complete.

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 takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to add or clarify on parameters.

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?

Specific verb+resource ('Sync lead forms from Meta') with an added mechanism sentence ('Queues a background read of the lead forms on every leads-enabled Page'). This clearly differentiates it from siblings like list_facebook_lead_forms, get_facebook_lead_form, and update_facebook_lead_form.

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?

Provides clear operational context: administrators only, requires the facebook_marketing feature, and 'Poll the list to see the result' points the agent at list_facebook_lead_forms for follow-up. It stops short of explicitly stating when NOT to use this versus a direct read tool, so it lacks full routing guidance.

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