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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so 'This read creates no form' largely restates the structured safety profile. The description does add useful behavioral context about what guidance the result carries (useWhen/avoidWhen, measure preservation) and the required follow-up flow, but it omits pagination/limits or failure behavior for an invalid id.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then progressively adds result contents and workflow steps. Slightly dense with an enumerated list of returned artifacts, but every sentence is task-relevant and there is no filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so naming the returned fields is partly redundant, but the description still supplies essential downstream instructions (placeholder resolution, measure preservation, using the authenticated setup/publishing flow). For a single-param read tool this is close to complete, with only edge-case/idempotency detail missing.

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?

With one parameter at 100% schema coverage and a documented pattern plus min/max length, the schema carries the load. The description's 'exact id from fillo_search_library' matches the schema's own wording, adding little beyond it, so baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Retrieve one public library form by exact id') and anchors provenance to fillo_search_library, which cleanly separates it from fillo_get_form and the search tool. An agent can pick this tool without opening a schema.

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 clear context: id comes from fillo_search_library, then 'use the existing authenticated Fillo setup and publishing flow' after resolving placeholders. It does not explicitly contrast against fillo_get_form, so an exclusion is missing, but the workflow guidance is strong.

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