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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so no safety behavior needs restating. The description adds useful output-behavior context beyond the schema by explaining where outcome codes live (report.outcomeAnalysis.outcomes) and how language fields are structured, which helps the agent interpret responses correctly.

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 two sentences with no filler. The main purpose and output scope are front-loaded, and the second sentence adds clarifying output semantics rather than repeating schema content.

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 three-parameter read-only tool with an output schema and complete parameter descriptions, this description is complete. It covers the tool's scope, key data fields, outcome-code relationships, and translation-language semantics, so an agent has enough to understand both invocation and returned data.

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 schema already explains id, includeFields, and includeReport with their defaults. The description implicitly relates fields[] and report to the include flags, but it adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the input schema already provides.

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 opens with a specific action and resource: "View one form of the current team in full," which clearly distinguishes it from list_forms and get_form_stats. It also specifies what "full" means by naming fields[] and the report configuration, so an agent knows exactly what this tool returns.

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 gives clear context: use this when you need one complete form including its questions and report configuration, not just a form listing or translation. It does not explicitly state when-not against related tools like get_form_translation or list_forms, but the context is strong enough for a retrieval tool.

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