Get a form

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: the return structure, item ordering, and index semantics for mutations. It does not contradict annotations and provides meaningful extra insight.

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 sentences with no redundant words. The first sentence lists the returned data structure, and the second delivers a crucial ordering/index note. Every sentence adds value.

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?

Though there is no output schema, the description enumerates all major components of the returned form and highlights the important ordering property. For a read tool with strong annotations, this is complete and sufficient.

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 fully describes the only parameter (form_id) including its source from the form URL or create_form output. The description does not add further parameter detail, so baseline 3 for complete schema coverage is 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 explicitly states the tool returns the full form with specific fields (info, settings, items, publishSettings, responderUri, linkedSheetId). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_form_info or get_response, which operate on subsets or different resources.

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 includes explicit guidance: 'call this before mutating items' because the returned item order corresponds to indexes used by update_question, delete_item, and move_item. This gives a clear when-to-use and logically excludes alternatives for mutations.

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