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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds a non-obvious behavioral trait — this is an asynchronous two-step job requiring polling with a jid and retry on 'pending' — which goes beyond what the structured fields convey.

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-loads the return content, then the two-step procedure, then the endpoint — logical order with no filler. Slightly dense but every sentence carries invocation-relevant information.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description describes the returned structure (sections, inputs, filled-in values) and the async retrieval protocol, which is the key thing an agent needs to call it correctly. Minor gaps around error/retry limits remain but are not critical.

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%, so the schema already documents jid, form_id and project_id. The description reinforces the jid lifecycle (omit to start, resend to poll), aligning with the schema but adding no syntax or constraints beyond it. Baseline 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+resource and detail level: 'A form with its sections, inputs and filled-in values.' The 'full' framing implies richer data than the sibling fieldwire_get_form, but it never names that sibling, so the differentiation is left to inference.

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?

Provides strong procedural guidance for this specific tool: call without jid to start the job, then poll with the returned jid, treating 'pending' as not-ready. It covers how to invoke but not when to prefer this over fieldwire_get_form or fieldwire_list_forms, and states no exclusions.

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