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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: it states the tool never returns submissions because they contain visitor PII. This privacy boundary is useful and goes beyond the annotation's simple read-only signal, though it does not discuss error cases or authentication.

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 sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence front-loads the action and resource, lists the returned fields compactly, and the second sentence draws an important boundary about PII. Every clause earns its place.

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 single-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it identifies the resource, enumerates the return contents, and states what is intentionally excluded. An agent has enough information to select and invoke this tool correctly.

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 documents formId with full coverage (100%) and explains it comes from list_forms or get_project. The description does not add significant parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('one form endpoint'), then enumerates the exact fields returned: URL, assignment, active/paused, submission count, notification email, confirmation message, origin rule, and embed snippet. This clearly distinguishes it from list_forms and other get_* 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 description makes clear this is for reading a single form's configuration/metadata, not for retrieving submissions — it explicitly states submissions are dashboard-only and never returned. It does not explicitly name an alternative like list_forms, but the exclusion of submissions gives clear context on when not to use it.

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