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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, and openWorld, so 'Read-only' in the description is redundant. However, the description adds real behavioral value by enumerating what the tool returns (embed snippet, lead destinations, 30-day lead count, last lead, failed deliveries, recent submissions) — important context given there is no output schema.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; every listed item earns its place by previewing returned data. The dense comma list is slightly run-on but remains readable and 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 single-parameter, read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description gives the agent enough to know what data comes back and the client-scoping behavior. Usage routing to sibling form tools is the only meaningful 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?

With a single parameter at 100% schema description coverage, the schema already explains the client argument and the 'leave out for all clients' behavior. The description's 'for one client or all' merely echoes this, adding little beyond the structured field.

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 a clear resource (the lead forms Agency Autopilot hosts) and enumerates the sub-resources returned (embed snippet, lead destinations, 30-day leads, last lead, failed deliveries, submissions). It implicitly distinguishes itself as the read side of forms versus siblings like create_lead_form or form_test, but never names those alternatives 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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of related siblings such as create_lead_form, form_test, or lead_check. The phrase 'for one client or all' hints at the query scope but is really parameter behavior, not usage routing.

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