meta_ads_leads_get_by_ad

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

No annotations exist, so description carries full burden. It declares read-only behavior and notes return shape matches sibling. Could elaborate on auth requirements or side effects, but the core behavioral trait (read-only, same shape) is conveyed. Lacks detail on rate limits or error scenarios.

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, each adding distinct value: purpose, usage, guidance, and return consistency. No redundancy. Front-loaded with the core function. Ideal length for quick comprehension.

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?

Given no output schema, description references return shape through sibling tool, which is helpful. Parameter details are covered well by schema. Could mention pagination or ordering, but the description remains sufficiently complete for an agent to understand the tool's function and when to use it.

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 coverage is 100% with detailed descriptions for each parameter. Description adds minor context (account_id fallback, ad_id must be Lead Ads ad, limit defaults) but does not significantly expand beyond schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 it retrieves leads attributed to a specific ad, regardless of form. It specifies the exact resource (ad-specific leads) and distinguishes from sibling meta_ads_leads_get which is form-based. Verb 'retrieves' is specific and accurate.

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 instructs when to use: 'measure lead volume of a particular creative / ad ID when ranking winners.' Also contrasts with alternative: 'For full form-based lead pulls (cross-ad) use meta_ads_leads_get.' This provides clear selection criteria.

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