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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and closed-world scope, so safety is covered. The description adds value the annotations cannot: it discloses the content and shape of the response (block ids, ordering, supported operators, jumpable endings, variables), which tells an agent why it should call this first. It does not mention pagination or size limits, keeping it just below a 5.

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, the first front-loading the payload contents and the second front-loading the call ordering. Every clause carries information about what is returned. The single long enumerating sentence is dense but readable, with only minor room to tighten.

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 must carry the return-value burden, and it does enumerate the response categories an agent needs in order to construct valid rules. For a one-parameter read-only prerequisite tool this is close to complete; only response format details and any size/rate caveats are absent.

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?

There is a single parameter, form_slug, with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents it. The description only implies it is scoped to a form, adding no format, slug-discovery, or error semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the work.

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 names a specific resource (logic options for a form) and enumerates exactly what it returns: draft blocks with ids, order, option ids, comparison operators, rule-hosting blocks, ending blocks, and variables. It clearly positions itself relative to set-block-logic-tool and update-variables-tool, so an agent can distinguish it from every sibling 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?

The final sentence gives explicit sequencing guidance: call this before update-variables-tool or set-block-logic-tool. That is strong when-to-use direction. It stops short of saying when the call is unnecessary (e.g., after options are already in hand), so it is clear but not exhaustive.

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