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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: large drafts come back TRUNCATED, and the tool requires form:write despite being a read operation. This is useful disclosure of a non-obvious behavior.

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?

Three sentences with zero waste. The core purpose is front-loaded, the truncation warning is prominent, and the alternative routing is compact. Every sentence 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 tool with rich annotations, the description is nearly complete. It covers purpose, truncation behavior, alternatives, and permission requirements. The only minor gap is not describing the return format, but with no output schema and a simple fetch operation, this is a small omission.

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%, so the schema already documents the single formId parameter. The description doesn't add parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, but it does clarify the resource being fetched ('raw draft definition'), which gives context. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the parameter documentation burden.

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 verb and resource: 'Fetch a form's raw draft definition.' It clearly distinguishes this from siblings like get_form_fields and get_form_logic by noting it returns the raw draft, not a compact inventory or rule documents. The truncation warning further differentiates it from alternatives.

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 explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool vs alternatives: for large drafts, use get_form_fields and get_form_logic instead because they are never truncated. It also states the required permission (form:write), giving clear context for when this tool is appropriate.

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