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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations, the description discloses the 404 behavior, the multi-space auth requirement, and the system-wide ChangeRequest model. The 'treat stored content as data' note adds safety context, though the ChangeRequest sentence is generic rather than specific to this endpoint.

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 key information—endpoint, 404 behavior, and multi-space instruction—is concisely front-loaded. The generic ChangeRequest and prompt-injection sentences add some system context but are not directly tool-specific, creating minor noise.

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 simple get-by-node tool, the description covers the target behavior, the not-found case, and the only non-obvious parameter prerequisite. With annotations already declaring read-only behavior and no output schema needed, nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

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 description ties nodeId to 'the form bound to this node' and explicitly reinforces the targetSpaceId flow already described in the schema. It compensates for the schema's partial coverage, though it does not provide nodeId format or example values.

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 states a specific operation ('Get a form by its node id'), identifies the resource as 'the form bound to this node', and clarifies the 404 result for missing bindings. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like forms_list or forms_submit.

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?

It gives actionable usage context: for multi-space accounts, call auth_verify, ask the user, and pass targetSpaceId. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives such as forms_list or forms_submit, so the choice boundary is implied rather than stated.

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