get_lead_form

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only says 'Get details' without explaining any behavior such as authentication requirements, possibility of partial field selection, error conditions (e.g., Meta error #190 mentioned in schema), or response format. The schema's page_id description provides some context, but the tool description itself adds minimal behavioral transparency.

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 concise sentence with no fluff or redundancy. It is front-loaded, clearly stating the verb and object, and every word earns its place. No unnecessary details are included.

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 is a simple getter, but with no output schema and no annotations, the description must provide context about what 'details' entails. It does not explain the return structure, whether fields can be selected, or how it relates to similar tools like get_form_leads. The schema parameter descriptions help with input but not output completeness. Thus, the description is insufficiently informative for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior.

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%, with all three parameters (fields, form_id, page_id) having descriptions. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level information, but per the baseline rule for high schema coverage, a score of 3 is appropriate. The description does not enhance or clarify parameter usage beyond what the schema already provides.

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 clearly identifies the tool's action ('Get details') and resource ('a specific lead generation form'), which is specific enough to distinguish from sibling tools like list_lead_forms. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from similar getters such as get_lead or get_form_leads, so it lacks the sibling differentiation that would merit a 5.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It simply states the purpose without mentioning use cases, exclusions, or specific scenarios (e.g., retrieving a single form vs. listing forms or fetching leads). No alternative tools are referenced, leaving the agent without context for selection.

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