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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description genuinely adds the return-scope constraint (header data only, no filled-in values), but says nothing about auth, errors, or missing-form behavior, so it adds modest context rather than rich behavior.

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?

Extremely tight: one scoping sentence plus the endpoint. The scope qualifier is front-loaded. The endpoint string is low-value redundancy but costs little.

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 single-item read with no output schema, the description tells the agent what comes back (headers, not values) and annotations cover safety, which is enough to call it correctly. Missing only error/not-found behavior to be fully complete.

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 coverage is 100% with both UUID parameters fully documented, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The REST path echoes that project_id and id identify the resource but adds no format or constraint detail beyond the schema.

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 ... one form by id') and scopes the payload ('header data only, not the filled-in values'). This implicitly distinguishes it from fieldwire_get_form_full, but the sibling is never named, so the differentiation is inferential rather than explicit.

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 'header data only, not the filled-in values' clause hints that get_form_full is the alternative when full values are needed, but it never states when to pick this tool or when-not to. Usage is implied rather than directed.

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