list_lead_forms

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. It states the tool lists forms, implying a read-only operation, but does not explicitly mention side effects, permission requirements, or any limits such as pagination or response size. The behavior is minimally disclosed but not richly contextualized.

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 two sentences and front-loaded with the core action. The second sentence, 'Helps understand what forms are available and their configuration,' is slightly redundant with the first sentence but not wasteful. Overall it is concise and efficient with no filler.

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 description is complete enough for a simple list operation. It specifies the scope (all lead forms for an account) and includes questions and settings. There is no output schema, but the description conveys the return concept. It does not mention pagination or potential large response sizes, but given the tool's simplicity and full parameter documentation, it is sufficiently complete.

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%, meaning all three parameters (accountId, status, includeQuestions) have descriptions. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies. It does not clarify parameter formats or provide extra context beyond what the schema already offers.

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 states it lists all lead generation forms configured for an account, including their questions and settings. The verb 'lists' combined with the specific resource 'lead generation forms' makes the purpose unambiguous and distinguishes it from sibling tools that handle campaigns, ad accounts, or creatives.

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 implies usage when one needs to understand available forms and their configuration, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or mention any exclusions. Since it is uniquely scoped to lead forms, an agent can infer its use, but explicit guidance on alternatives is missing.

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