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

Annotations already declare this as a read-only, non-destructive, closed-world operation, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds useful behavioral context by stating that the result includes fields[] and report configuration, that outcome codes live at report.outcomeAnalysis.outcomes, and that translationLanguages lists non-primary versions. It does not address missing-form behavior or permissions beyond 'current team.'

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the remaining sentences focus on useful output details for outcome forms and languages. The description is appropriately sized for a read-by-id tool, though some return-value detail overlaps with the output schema.

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 rich annotations, 100% schema coverage, and an output schema, the description is complete enough to call the tool correctly. It covers the main return nuances and the current-team scope, but does not mention error behavior when a form is not found or inaccessible.

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 id, includeFields, and includeReport fully. The description mentions the fields[] and report data that those booleans control, but it does not add syntax, constraints, or selection guidance beyond what the schema provides. 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?

The description clearly states a specific verb and resource: 'View one form of the current team in full.' It distinguishes the operation from list-style siblings by specifying a single form and enumerating the included data (fields[], report configuration). It stops short of naming an explicit alternative, so it is clear but not maximally differentiated.

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 phrase 'View one form' implies usage when a single form's full details are needed, and the mention of large-form behavior is left to the schema. However, the description does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus list_forms, get_form_translation, or get_form_stats. Usage is therefore implied rather than stated.

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