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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered structurally. The description adds genuine context beyond that: the read targets the *draft* structure (implying a distinct published state, relevant given publish-form-tool) and specifies the shape of what comes back.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler. The payload description is front-loaded and the usage directive follows it, so an agent can act after the first sentence alone.

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, the description usefully enumerates the returned sections so the agent knows what it will get. For a one-parameter read tool this is close to complete; only the draft-versus-published distinction could be stated more explicitly.

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 100% and the single form_slug parameter is already documented in-schema as 'The form's slug, from list-forms-tool.' The description adds no further meaning about the parameter, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ('Get a form's current draft structure') and then enumerates exactly what is returned: metadata, design, hidden fields, translation languages, and the ordered draft block list with ids/types/titles/settings. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like list-forms-tool and get-form-stats-tool.

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?

Explicitly prescribes timing: 'Use this before editing blocks, design, or hidden fields,' which correctly routes the agent to this call prior to update-block-tool, update-design-tool, or update-hidden-fields-tool. It does not name those siblings directly or state exclusions, so it falls just 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.