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

Even though annotations already indicate readOnly and idempotent, the description adds important non-obvious behavior not derivable from annotations or schema: files_url is private and should not appear in public snippets, turnstile always inherits from the project, webhook_url_override is nullable with inheritance semantics, and only email.subject and email.intro can be overridden. This is rich, useful behavioral disclosure with no contradiction.

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 description is front-loaded with the core purpose and then packs high-value details into a compact paragraph. Every sentence contributes distinct information: scope, privacy-sensitive fields, inheritance behavior, nullable webhook semantics, and the alternative tool. There is no filler or redundancy.

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?

Given the simple single-parameter schema, no output schema, and read/idempotent annotations, the description compensates well by clarifying key response semantics (resolved vs inherited settings, turnstile inheritance, nullable webhook override) and by explicitly preventing misuse through get_snippet. An agent has enough context to invoke it 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 only parameter, form_id, is already fully documented in the schema (100% coverage) with a clear source hint ('Form id from list_forms, create_form, or bootstrap_site'). The description does not need to add parameter syntax and does not repeat it, which is appropriate; the baseline of 3 applies because the schema carries the 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 operation: 'read a form plus resolved and inherited settings,' and then clarifies its boundaries by saying 'Do not use to generate embed code — call get_snippet.' This distinguishes the tool from at least one sibling (get_snippet) and conveys exactly what resource and behavior is involved.

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 frames when to use the tool ('Use to read a form...') and when not to use it ('Do not use to generate embed code — call get_snippet'). It also names the alternative tool directly, giving the agent a clear routing decision without needing to inspect other definitions.

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