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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, so the description's added value is in disclosing the response composition (name, URL, submission counts, settings) and the conditional enrichment via with_fields. It stops short of covering auth requirements or error behavior, but for a read-only lookup it supplies meaningful extra context.

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?

A single sentence, front-loaded with the main action and its return contents, then the optional flag, then the endpoint. No filler or redundancy.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description correctly takes on the job of describing what comes back, and for a trivial two-parameter read it covers the essentials. Minor omissions (permissions scope, behavior when the form ID does not exist) keep it from being 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 description coverage is 100%, so both form_id and with_fields are already documented. The description reinforces with_fields by characterizing it as returning the 'full field list,' but adds no format, default, or edge-case detail beyond the schema, making the baseline 3 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?

The description names a specific verb and resource ('Fetch a form's details') and enumerates the payload contents (name, URL, submission counts, settings), which separates it from formstack_list_forms and from formstack_list_form_fields. The 'GET /forms/{formId}' endpoint notation reinforces that this retrieves a single form by ID.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the tool is for retrieving one known form, and the 'optionally with its full field list' clause hints at when to use with_fields. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over formstack_list_form_fields or formstack_list_forms, and no prerequisites are given.

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