ad_manager_fb_get_page_lead_forms

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. However, the description adds no extra behavioral context—e.g., what 'lead forms' includes, whether pagination or filtering is available, or any side effects. With annotations doing the heavy lifting, the description falls short of adding value beyond them.

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, trenchant sentence with zero unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and directly states the action and resource. There is no fluff or repetition, making it an excellent model of conciseness.

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 read-only tool with two well-documented parameters and safety annotations, the description provides the minimum viable context. However, it lacks any description of the return value or how it differs from similar 'get' tools (e.g., ad_manager_fb_get_lead_form). Given the rich ecosystem of sibling tools, this could lead to incorrect selection, but the schema and annotations partially compensate.

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 100%, as both pageId and locationId have descriptive text in the schema. The description itself does not mention parameters, but the schema already documents them adequately. Per the baseline rule, a score of 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the semantic burden.

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 page lead forms' states a clear verb and resource. It is specific enough to identify the tool's function, but it does not differentiate it from similar siblings like ad_manager_fb_get_lead_form (singular) or ad_manager_fb_get_conversation_forms, which could cause ambiguity for an agent.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, context (e.g., retrieving all lead forms for a page), or any conditions that would favor this tool over sibling 'get' tools. The absence of any usage guidance forces the agent to infer context from the name alone.

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