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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral nuance beyond that: the staged-draft result is conditional on the connection having edit rights, which the agent could not infer from the schema.

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 dense sentence front-loaded with the action and resource, with the conditional draft behavior appended after the required parts. Nothing is wasted and no sentence is redundant.

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?

Output schema exists so return values need not be spelled out, yet the description usefully summarizes them (schema, theme, status, draft). The single required parameter is fully covered and the edit-permission precondition is disclosed, so an agent has everything needed to call it 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?

Only one parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents it. The description restates the same accepted key forms (id, slug, push handle) without adding format or precedence details, which is the expected baseline 3.

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?

Names a specific verb (Fetch) plus resource (a project form), states the lookup key set (id, slug, or push handle), and enumerates what is returned (live schema, theme, status, staged draft). This clearly separates it from list-style siblings like fillo_list_forms and fillo_get_library_form.

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 two concrete when-to-use cases: reading a form before editing, and verifying what fillo_push_form staged, which explicitly routes to a sibling. It does not state when-not to use it (e.g. vs. fillo_list_forms for multiple forms), so it falls short of a full 5.

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