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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral constraints: preserve every name attribute and hidden inputs, paste unchanged except for styling, and publish only on allowed websites. It does not explain return format or rate limits, but the output schema covers return values.

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 sentence that front-loads the tool's purpose before listing usage rules. It contains no obvious waste, though the colon-separated rule list is slightly dense and could be more scannable.

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 one-parameter read-only tool with an output schema, the description covers what the tool returns and the critical constraints on using the HTML. The main gap is the lack of explicit sibling differentiation, which matters because get_form and list_forms are adjacent tools.

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 100%, and the single form_id parameter is already documented as 'The form's id, as list_forms returns it.' The description adds no additional meaning or syntax beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 resource and output: 'The HTML to put a form on a website.' It is specific enough to distinguish from siblings like get_form or get_submission, but it does not explicitly name or contrast those alternatives.

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 rules for using the returned HTML, but it does not explain when to call this tool versus siblings such as get_form, list_forms, or get_submission. There is no explicit selection guidance or exclusion criteria for the agent.

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