get_ad_leads

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does clarify the return shape (a dictionary with lead submissions and pagination info) and documents field defaults. However, it does not mention auth requirements, rate limits, errors, or what happens when an ad has no lead form, leaving some behavior implicit.

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 front-loaded with a clear purpose and then organized into Args/Returns sections. It is longer than a one-liner, but every line adds information the schema omits, so the length is fully justified and there is 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?

For a 5-parameter tool with no annotations, the description covers all parameters, defaults, and return shape, and an output schema is present. Missing usage context and edge-case behavior are the only notable gaps, but the agent has enough to call the tool correctly.

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 0%, but the description fully compensates by documenting all five parameters. It lists the valid field names, the default field set, the meaning of limit, and the direction of after/before cursors. This is essential meaning the schema alone lacks.

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 first sentence names a specific operation and resource: 'Get lead form submissions for a Lead Generation ad.' This is concrete and distinct from sibling tools like get_ad_insights or get_ad_creatives, which retrieve different data for the same ad. The scope is unambiguous.

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 gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. It only says it operates on a Lead Generation ad, which is implicit context rather than explicit selection criteria.

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