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

readOnlyHint=true already covers the safety profile, but the description adds real context: the shortcode is page-content only and a block references the form via its `form` attribute, plus a mandatory skill-doc prerequisite. That is genuine behavioral value beyond the annotation.

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?

Front-loaded with the verb and resource, then field details, then rules. Dense but every clause carries information; the parenthetical shortcode clarification is the only slightly awkward insertion.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, yet the description still names the returned fields and the mandatory skill-doc prerequisite. Complete enough for a single-parameter read tool.

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 100% and the single parameter's description ('Form id from list-forms') already documents it. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Read one Contact Form 7 form') and enumerates exactly what is returned (title, raw template, mail recipient/subject, message keys, shortcode). An agent can distinguish it from list-forms and get-content without opening a schema.

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 routes sequencing: 'Read before update-cf7-form' and 'read get-skill-doc {id:"forms-contract"} before the first call.' Strong when-to-use guidance, though it does not state exclusions or when a different read tool is preferable.

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