meta_ads_leads_get_by_ad

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

Description claims 'Read-only' and notes output shape matches another tool, but lacks detail on other behavioral traits like rate limits, authorization, or edge cases. With no annotations, the description carries full burden, yet it only minimally adds beyond the read-only declaration.

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?

Description is three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, and each sentence adds value. Could be slightly more concise but overall efficient and clear.

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 tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description provides output shape reference and clear use case. It lacks pagination details but the schema covers limit. Given sibling richness, context is adequate for selection.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage of parameter descriptions, so the description does not need to add parameter details. It only mentions the purpose of the ad_id in context, but no extra semantic value beyond schema.

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?

Description clearly states 'Retrieves leads attributed to a specific ad', specifying the verb, resource, and scope. It distinguishes from sibling meta_ads_leads_get by noting this is for a specific ad vs form-based cross-ad pulls, aiding in tool selection.

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 it: 'to measure lead volume of a particular creative / ad ID when ranking winners' and when not to use: 'For full form-based lead pulls (cross-ad) use meta_ads_leads_get', providing direct alternative.

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