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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description does add one genuinely useful piece of behavioral context: results are scoped to 'the linked Market Brew account,' which tells the agent about visibility/auth boundaries. Nothing else (paginations, shape of the field list) is disclosed, so this stays at a minimum-viable 3.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the trigger and no filler. It is appropriately sized for its content, though the brevity reflects thin content rather than tight editing.

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 read tool with no output schema, no parameter documentation, and no annotations explaining return content, the description leaves the agent without enough to invoke it confidently. It never defines what 'form fields' are returned, how the identifier parameter is obtained, or how this differs from get_license_definition.

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 0% and the single parameter licenseDefinitionSummary (accepting a string or number) is left completely unexplained — the description does not say whether it is an ID, a name, or where to obtain it. Since coverage is low, the description was required to compensate and does not, so it falls below the baseline.

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 essentially restates the title: 'get license-definition form fields' is the tool name with spaces. It never explains what a form field is here, what the returned field set describes, or how it relates to the sibling get_license_definition / list_license_definitions, so an agent cannot distinguish its purpose from those siblings.

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 only guidance is the circular trigger 'use this when the user asks to get license-definition form fields,' which provides no when-to-use condition beyond the name itself. No alternatives are named and no prerequisite (e.g., needing a license definition first) is stated, even though get_license_definition exists as an obvious sibling.

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