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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-open-world, so the '[read-only]' prefix adds nothing. The valuable additions are the returned field set (id, name, status) and the upstream endpoint, which matter because there is no output schema; pagination behavior via cursor is left unstated.

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?

Two compact sentences, front-loaded with the resource and return fields, followed by the practical usage tip. The '[read-only]' tag and the parenthetical endpoint wrapper are mildly redundant with annotations but cost little.

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 two-parameter read-only list tool with no output schema, the description supplies the important return shape and the reason to call it. The only meaningful gap is the absence of cursor/pagination guidance, which an agent would need to page results.

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?

brandId is documented in the schema, and the description's 'brand's selected ad account' loosely reinforces its scoping role. The cursor parameter is undocumented in both schema and description, and the description adds no format or paging semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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 specific resource (Meta Instant Forms / lead forms) and the fields returned (id, name, status), so an agent knows exactly what this lists. It does not explicitly contrast with ads_lead_form_create, though the 'use a form id as leadGenFormId' line implies the create/consume relationship.

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?

It gives a concrete downstream use case: retrieve a form id to pass as leadGenFormId in ads_campaign_create. That is clear when-to-use guidance, but there is no explicit exclusion or mention of how it differs from the create/list siblings for forms.

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