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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description correctly aligns by describing a non-destructive read operation. It adds behavioral detail beyond annotations by disclosing the error condition (returns error if language version does not exist) and clarifying the returned content (mirrored fields[] and 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?

The description is a single, dense paragraph with no filler. It front-loads the primary action, includes critical context, and routes to the necessary sibling tools. Every sentence adds value; no 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 read-only tool with a rich output schema, the description covers the purpose, usage context, potential error condition, and follow-up actions. It fully equips an agent to call the tool correctly without needing to inspect siblings or infer behavior.

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% for both parameters (formId and language), so the schema provides full documentation. The description adds context by mentioning 'source form' for formId and using 'which language version to read' for language, which slightly enriches but does not significantly surpass the schema's own descriptions.

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 ('Read') and resource ('full content of one language version of a form'), and distinguishes itself from siblings like get_form and create_form_translation. It explicitly mentions the fields included, making its scope unmistakable.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use this to fetch the current draft before translating'. It also gives clear when-not-to-use context by explaining error conditions (if language version doesn't exist, create first) and names the sibling tools (update_form_translation, create_form_translation) for the next steps.

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