ad_manager_li_get_lead_forms

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the safe operation claim. It does not mention that it returns a list, any pagination, or what data is included. While it does not contradict annotations, it adds no value beyond what structured data already conveys.

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?

Being a single phrase is concise, but it is under-specified rather than efficiently packed. It omits essential details like scope and return behavior, making it closer to an incomplete stub than a concise description.

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 list-retrieval tool with no output schema, the description should explain that it returns all lead forms for an account, possibly noting the locationId default. It does none of this. The description is inadequate for an agent to understand what data to expect or how to use the tool effectively.

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%; both parameters have descriptions (accountId as 'Account identifier' and locationId with default behavior explained). The description adds no additional parameter meaning, but since the schema is thorough, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 forms' states a verb and resource, but is vague. It does not specify which lead forms (LinkedIn vs Facebook) or any filtering/scoping, and does not differentiate from sibling tools like ad_manager_fb_get_lead_form or ad_manager_fb_get_page_lead_forms. It is nearly a restatement of the tool name.

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. There are many sibling tools for retrieving lead forms (e.g., ad_manager_fb_get_lead_form, ad_manager_li_create_lead_form), but the description gives no context, exclusions, or alternative names. An agent would have to infer usage 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.