zuckerbot_get_lead_form

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

With no annotations provided, the description takes on the full burden of safety disclosure and does so explicitly: 'A pure read — it never changes or persists the selected form.' This is precisely the behavioral property an agent needs before invoking a tool. It also discloses the Page-ownership constraint that explains likely validation failures. Details like auth requirements or not-found error behavior are absent but secondary for a one-parameter read.

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?

Three sentences with zero waste. The verb and resource are front-loaded, the return payload is listed compactly, the read-safety property is disclosed in one short sentence, and the sibling routing plus precondition close it out. Every sentence earns its place.

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 tool with a single parameter, one required field, and no output schema, coverage is solid: the description states purpose, enumerates the payload (partially substituting for an output schema), declares the safety profile, and defines the sourcing of the ID. An explicit note on the form_id error behavior (e.g., missing id or mismatch with the selected Page) would raise this to fully complete, but nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.

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 the form_id parameter description already includes the key lookup instruction, so the schema does most of the work. The description adds value beyond the schema by stating the Page-ownership validation rule and by listing the concrete fields the ID's read will resolve, which contextualizes the parameter's meaning.

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 opens with a specific verb-resource pair, 'Read one Meta lead form (Instant Form) in full', and then enumerates exactly what the read returns (questions, privacy policy URL, legal content, locale, context card, thank-you page, follow-up action URL, status, created time, lead counts). This unambiguously distinguishes it from sibling zuckerbot_lead_forms (the listing counterpart) without needing to open any schema.

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 explicit routing ('Find form ids with zuckerbot_lead_forms') and a concrete precondition ('The form must belong to the selected Facebook Page'). It does not explicitly name exclusions like zuckerbot_export_leads when lead data is what's needed, but the enumerated field list implies that distinction strongly enough for an agent to route correctly.

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