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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the tool's safety profile is established by structured data. The description adds that it returns delivery settings and embed material, but does not disclose potential behavioral edge cases such as invalid form IDs, required permissions, or rate limits. With annotations carrying the safety burden, this is adequate but not richer than a baseline.

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 three focused sentences. The first front-loads the full output inventory, the second isolates the one optional parameter that changes the result, and the third gives a concrete use case plus an alternative tool. Every sentence earns its place and no fluff is present.

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?

There is an output schema, so detailed return values are already documented. The description adds the missing contextual layer: which form scope is used (current team), which intent this tool serves (link/embed/launch sanity-check), and which sibling tool to use for mutation. For a read-only retrieval tool with a full output schema, it is complete.

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 formId, utmSource, iframeHeight, and popupButtonText are fully documented in the structured schema. The description only reuses utmSource's meaning ('Pass utmSource to get every link and snippet tagged for one channel') without adding new semantic detail beyond the schema, and it says nothing about iframeHeight or popupButtonText.

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 intent—'put a form of the current team in front of an audience'—and enumerates concrete deliverables: public answer link, per-language links, custom domain, embed snippets, and delivery settings. It clearly separates this retrieval tool from siblings such as get_form and update_form_settings.

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 explicitly says when to use the tool: "Use this to answer 'give me the link / the embed code' and to sanity-check a launch" and points to a specific alternative for mutation: "change the switches with update_form_settings." Both selection criteria and an exclusion are stated.

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