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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds a genuinely critical trait beyond them: a 30-day retention window after which data is permanently deleted. This is exactly the kind of behavioral context the annotations cannot express.

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 what is returned, then scoping, then the retention warning and the webhook workaround. Dense but nearly every sentence earns its place; the webhook remedy is slightly tangential but operationally relevant.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. The retention caveat and read-only nature are covered; the remaining gap is the undocumented limit parameter and pagination behavior.

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 0%, so the description must carry the load. It explains asset_id (narrows to one form) and implicitly bounds days via the 30-day retention note, but 'limit' and the required 'customer_id' remain undescribed. Partial compensation only.

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 and resource ('Reads the LEADS people submitted through a Google Ads lead form') and enumerates the returned fields (name, phone, email, qualifying answers). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling lead tools such as list_meta_lead_forms, download_meta_leads and site_form_submissions.

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?

Gives clear operational context: use asset_id to scope to one form, and be aware Google purges after 30 days. It also names the alternative for permanent storage (create_lead_form with webhook_url). It stops short of explicitly routing the agent away from sibling lead-download tools, so not a full 5.

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