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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so 'Changes nothing' mostly restates them. The one piece of added value is that the HTML is 'the same markup returned when the form was created', which tells the agent the markup is stable/reusable rather than freshly generated. It says nothing about what happens with an unknown formId or how large the returned HTML is.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that opens with the action and resource, then enumerates the payload. It is dense but each clause corresponds to a distinct returned item, so nothing feels wasted; slightly list-heavy but not padded.

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?

With no output schema and no annotation gaps, the description usefully enumerates the returned contents and states the operation is non-mutating. The remaining gap is the formId contract (format, source) for a tool whose only input is that opaque identifier.

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 coverage is 0% and the single parameter is undocumented, so the description must carry the burden. It identifies formId as the selector of the single form, but gives no format, example, or hint about where to obtain a valid formId (e.g., from create_form or a form listing).

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 ('Shows') plus resource ('one form (formId)') and a precise enumeration of what is returned: fields, status, success message, email destination, submission count, and ready-to-paste HTML. This clearly separates it from siblings like get_submissions (submissions only) and update_form (mutation).

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 makes the usage context obvious by enumerating exactly what you get back, and 'Changes nothing' signals this is the safe read path when you only need to inspect a form. It does not explicitly name alternatives (e.g., get_submissions for per-enquiry data) or state exclusions, so it stops short of a 5.

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