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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the behavioral detail that it works on documents in any status, which is not present in the annotations. This is useful context beyond what the structured fields provide. No contradiction with annotations.

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 short sentences with no redundant information. The core purpose is front-loaded, followed by the status note and the sibling distinction. Every sentence earns its place, making it easy for an agent to quickly parse the essential information.

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-only tool with one parameter and no output schema, this description is complete. It covers the purpose, status flexibility, and sibling differentiation. Annotations already handle the safety profile, and the return format is implicitly understood from the purpose (current field values). Nothing essential is missing for an agent to call this tool correctly.

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 describes the single parameter documentId with 'Unique identifier of the document', providing 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, but since the schema fully covers the parameter, the baseline score of 3 applies. The description doesn't need to repeat what the schema already states.

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 the verb 'retrieve' and the resource 'current values of all form fields in a document'. It explicitly differentiates from the sibling tool get_document_fields by noting that for field definitions and types, that tool should be used instead. This unambiguous purpose makes the tool easy to distinguish from its siblings.

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 description provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool: when you need current field values, and it works on documents in any status. It also explicitly names the alternative tool (get_document_fields) and the condition under which it should be used instead ('for field definitions and types'). This leaves no ambiguity about tool selection.

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