meta_ads_lead_forms_get

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses return fields, nested structure, a field naming mismatch (context_card cover_photo vs cover_photo_id), a known Meta API rejection, and explicitly states 'Read-only.' This goes far beyond a basic summary.

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 detailed but every sentence earns its place: field enumeration, a critical caveat, and a practical use case. No filler or redundant information.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain return values. It thoroughly documents the return structure including nested questions/context_card, the legacy privacy_policy_url, and a known pitfall. This gives the agent everything needed to invoke the tool correctly and interpret results.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema already provides, such as form_id source or account_id fallback.

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 'Fetches the full detail record for a single lead form' clearly identifies the verb and resource, and explicitly distinguishes from listing tools by emphasizing 'single' and 'full detail record.' It also names the sibling list tool implicitly by scoping to one lead form.

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?

Provides clear context: 'Call this before designing downstream CRM sync so you know the exact field keys to map.' This implies when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives (like meta_ads_lead_forms_list) or state when not to use this tool.

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