meta_ads_conversions_send_lead

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

Describes the tool as mutating on Meta's side, returns an acknowledgement, mentions deduplication on event_id, and notes that mureo automatically hashes PII. However, lacks disclosure on error handling, rate limits, or authorization details beyond account_id fallback.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with core function, return type, use cases, and alternatives. No redundant words or 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?

Provides sufficient context for selection and correct usage: use case examples, alternative tools, dedupe, hashing, and required fields. Lacks detail on error responses and return format beyond the acknowledgement, but is generally complete for a 6-parameter tool with no output schema.

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 descriptions cover all 6 parameters (100% coverage), so the tool description adds moderate value by providing context on dedupe and hashing behavior, but does not significantly expand on parameter details beyond what 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 the tool sends a Lead event via Meta Conversions API, specifies the return acknowledgement, and distinguishes it from sibling tools by listing use cases and alternative tools for money-moving and non-standard events.

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?

Explicitly states when to use this tool (form submissions, trial signups, demo requests) and when to use alternatives (meta_ads_conversions_send_purchase for money events, meta_ads_conversions_send for non-standard event names), providing clear decision guidance.

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