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 bar is lower. The description adds real context by listing the settings returned (confirmation message, notification emails, public flag, entry limit, links) and the underlying REST path, which helps the agent anticipate output shape.

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 dense sentences with zero filler; the identifier-based purpose and returned field list are front-loaded before the endpoint note.

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, enumerating returned fields is exactly the right compensation, and identifier sourcing is covered. Only explicit when-to-use guidance against the list/field siblings is 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and both parameters are documented, so baseline 3 applies. The 'by hash or URL title' phrasing restates what the schema already says rather than adding format or edge-case detail.

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 ('Fetch one form's settings') and enumerates the fields returned, which cleanly separates it from siblings like wufoo_get_form_fields and wufoo_list_forms. An agent can distinguish it without opening any 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 description implies single-form retrieval by hash or URL title, and the schema description points to wufoo_list_forms as the discovery step, but the description itself never states when to use this versus the list or field variants. Usage is inferable, not explicit.

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