meta_ads_leads_export_csv

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: it is read-only on Meta's side (fetches leads) but writes locally, details CSV format and column stability, mentions PII is never logged (only row count), and notes Meta's 90-day retention. This covers key operational traits.

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 four sentences, each focused and necessary. It front-loads the core action (fetching leads and writing CSV) and then adds important details in a logical order. No wasted words.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description clearly states the return value (number of rows written) and the output format (CSV with specific header). It also mentions Meta's data retention policy, making it complete for a tool of this complexity.

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?

The input schema already describes all 5 parameters with high coverage (100%). The description adds value by explaining the CSV header structure (including question_keys and field_order for stable ordering), which goes beyond the schema descriptions.

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 fetches all leads from a lead form and writes them to a local CSV file. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like meta_ads_leads_get and meta_ads_leads_get_by_ad by emphasizing the local file output and specific CSV structure.

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 provides context on when to use the tool (regular exports due to Meta's 90-day retention) and a privacy consideration (PII not logged). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, though the local export nature implies it's for persistent storage.

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