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

Annotations already cover read-only and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond those annotations: the tool only accesses public data and deliberately avoids exposing answers or owner credentials. This helps an agent reason about privacy and data scope.

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?

The description is two short sentences with no filler. The primary verb and resource are front-loaded, and the additional sentence earns its place by clarifying a critical boundary.

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 simple one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description states what will be returned (questions and availability) and what will not be returned (answers, owner credentials). The only notable gap is not explicitly linking the 'id' parameter to the form, but the overall context is sufficient for a competent agent.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage and the sole parameter 'id' is undocumented. The description never explicitly says that 'id' refers to the form being read; it only implies this through the word 'form' in the description. With low schema coverage, the description should compensate but does not directly address the parameter.

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 uses a specific verb ('Read') and a clear resource ('public form questions and availability'), and it names the key boundary that distinguishes it from collect_read_responses: it does not expose answers or owner credentials. This makes the tool's purpose immediately identifiable among the sibling tools.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: when public form questions and availability are needed. It also states an exclusion—'Does not expose answers or owner credentials'—so an agent understands that answer-related needs should go elsewhere, though it does not explicitly name the alternative sibling.

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