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

Annotations supply readOnlyHint=true, so the description needn't restate safety. It adds genuine behavioral value by disclosing the return payload contents and noting that fields are only included on request — important because no output schema exists. No auth or rate-limit context, so it stops short of 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 compact clauses, front-loaded with the resource and outcome, followed by the endpoint. No filler and nothing an agent must read past to reach the key meaning.

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 two-parameter read tool with exhaustive schema coverage and a readOnly annotation, the description covers the essentials plus return-shape cues. Only the absence of any note on error cases (e.g. nonexistent form_id) keeps 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 parameters are already documented, and the baseline is 3. The description echoes 'with_fields' via 'optionally with its full field list' but adds no format, default, or effect 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+resource ('Fetch a form's details') and enumerates the returned content (name, URL, submission counts, settings), which separates it from list_forms and list_form_fields without opening a schema. The endpoint reference (GET /forms/{formId}) pins the resource identity further.

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 phrase 'optionally with its full field list' implies the relationship to formstack_list_form_fields, but no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative is stated. Usage is inferable from the name and purpose rather than spelled out.

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