ad_manager_fb_get_lead_form

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no additional behavioral context, such as what happens if the lead form is not found or the structure of the response. This is acceptable given the annotations but not enriching.

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?

The description is a single, direct sentence with no fluff. It is efficient for a simple read operation, though it borders on under-specification. It earns a 4 for being concise without redundant information.

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 simple get-by-ID operation with no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it does not mention that it returns a single lead form or hint at the response format. Given the existence of sibling list tools, a note about singular vs. plural would improve completeness. It's functional but not generous.

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%, and both parameters are described in the input schema: leadFormId ('Lead form identifier') and locationId ('Location identifier Defaults to GHL_LOCATION_ID when omitted.'). The description adds no further meaning, so it relies on the schema. The baseline of 3 applies because coverage is high.

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 'Get lead form by ID' clearly states the action (get) and the resource (lead form) with a specific identifier. It is distinct from listing or creating operations, but it does not explicitly differentiate from similar 'get lead form' tools across platforms (e.g., ad_manager_li_get_lead_forms) beyond the tool name prefix.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The agent is not told that this fetches a single lead form by ID whereas other siblings like ad_manager_fb_get_page_lead_forms list all forms. The description lacks any context on prerequisites or intended use cases.

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