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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral value by explaining the failure case when a language version does not exist yet and by clarifying that the returned content includes mirrored fields[] and a report.

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, each serving a clear purpose: what the tool reads, how to use it in the edit/save workflow, and when it errors. The main purpose is front-loaded and 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?

For a simple read operation with two fully documented parameters, a schema, and read-only annotations, the description covers the main function, the mutation workflow it supports, and the error condition. Nothing needed for a correct call is missing.

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 schema documentation covers both parameters completely the formId and language enum, so the baseline is at 3. The description reinforces the language parameter's meaning by calling it a 'language version (translation)', which is consistent with the schema but adds minimal extra semantic detail.

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 starts with a specific verb and resource: 'Read the full content of one language version (translation) of a form', and additionally highlights the mirrored fields[] and report. It also references the relevant sibling operations (update_form_translation, create_form_translation), so an agent can tell it apart from get_form and list_form_translations.

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?

It gives explicit workflow guidance: use this tool to fetch the current draft before editing, keep codes identical to the source form, then save with update_form_translation. It also states when the call fails and directs the agent to create the translation first with create_form_translation.

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