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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so 'Read-only' adds little, but the description goes beyond them by describing the return structure (content plus an idRoles map with role labels) and pointing to load_skill("toon-format") for the payload schema, which is valuable since no output schema exists.

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?

Three tightly packed sentences that front-load the core purpose and then layer usage and payload guidance. Only the redundant 'Read-only' clause fails to earn its place against the annotations.

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 no-output-schema read tool this covers purpose, ordering constraints, and the shape of the result with a pointer to skill documentation. It falls short only on parameter semantics, which both schema and description leave bare.

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 0% and the description never mentions either parameter: no explanation of what formId identifies, nor that version selects draft vs published (an enum with a default). The heavy lifting the schema cannot do is left undone.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Read the form document as a TOON-serialized tree') and describes the returned payload (content + an idRoles map labelling node ids by logic role). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like form_get or the many editor_insert* authoring tools.

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?

Gives explicit timing and ordering: 'consult before authoring logic' and 'Use before any editor_insert*/update/replace/delete to discover nodeIds.' The agent knows both why and when to call this ahead of the mutation siblings.

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