get_form_leads

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

With no annotations provided, the description shoulders the full burden of disclosing behavior. It fails to mention that results are paginated (via 'after' and 'limit'), that field selection is possible, or that a page-specific access token may be required (as hinted by the schema's page_id note). The description is a bare action statement and offers no insight into return format, errors, or operational nuance.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler words. It earns its place by stating the primary action and resource, but it is almost too terse—missing the opportunity to include critical usage context in the same concise style. Still, given its short length, it is efficient and readable.

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?

The tool has 5 parameters and no output schema, so the description should compensate by explaining what the tool returns and any special behaviors. It does not cover pagination, field selection, or the access token nuance described in the schema for page_id. The description is sufficient for the simplest interpretation but incomplete for a tool that supports these options.

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% for all 5 parameters, so the schema already provides parameter meaning. The description adds no parameter-level detail, but according to the rubric, a baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema covers all parameters. No extra value was added to explain how form_id, after, limit, fields, or page_id interact.

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 uses the specific verb 'Get' and identifies the resource as 'leads' submitted through a lead generation form. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_campaign_leads and get_adset_leads, which retrieve leads via different scopes. The absence of an explicit platform name is minor given the schema references Facebook Page IDs, but it still slightly weakens the clarity.

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 versus alternatives such as get_campaign_leads or get_adset_leads. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or conditions under which another tool would be more appropriate. Only the core purpose is stated, leaving the agent without context for selecting among related lead-retrieval tools.

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