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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world). The description adds beyond that by disclosing the resolution mechanism (usesForm link) and framing this as an optional pre-step rather than a standalone operation. It omits failure behavior (e.g. when no usesForm link exists), which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, then usage conditions, then the follow-up call — a logical order for an agent. The appended '| EN: ...' keyword tag is search-oriented filler rather than description content, costing a point on strict conciseness.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by telling the agent exactly what comes out (the form_udid) and how to use it next. Only unaddressed gap is the error case where no usesForm link is resolvable, which is minor for a 1-parameter lookup.

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 single parameter is self-describing (answer_udid, 32-hex), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description reinforces the semantic role of the input (a 'known' answer_udid) but adds no format or constraint detail beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb+resource+resolution mechanism: it finds the form_udid belonging to a known answer_udid via the answer's usesForm link. It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling pair show_form_answer/prepare_form_answer by naming what it produces versus what they consume.

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?

Explicit when-to-use ('NUR wenn du eine answer_udid hast, aber die form_udid nicht kennst'), explicit when-not-to-use ('Hast du form_udid bereits (z.B. aus prepare_form_answer/submit_form_answer), brauchst du diesen Schritt nicht'), and it names the exact follow-up call show_form_answer(form_udid, answer_udid). No inference required.

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