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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond them by disclosing the return format ('readable prose rather than raw data, so it can be quoted directly') and the expansion behavior of form ids (form, questions, results so far).

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 verb+scope, followed by the id contract and return format, then a concrete example. Every sentence earns its place and nothing is padded.

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 spelled out, yet the prose note on output shape adds useful context. For a single-param read tool with full annotations, the description leaves no gap an agent needs to call 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?

Schema coverage is 100% (baseline 3), but the description adds genuine meaning: the id must be the exact token search returned, and its interpretation differs by prefix (form id vs response id). That is more than the schema's bare 'An id returned by search.'

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 and resource ('Read the full detail of something search returned') and immediately scopes it to ids originating from search, which separates it from get_form/list_responses. The form-id vs response-id resolution sentence tells the agent exactly what object each id type yields.

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?

Clearly establishes the usage context: this is the follow-up to search, and the id must be passed back verbatim. No alternatives (e.g. get_form, list_responses) are named, so there's no explicit when-not guidance, but the trigger condition is unambiguous.

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