leads_get_form

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation by using 'Get', but does not explicitly state the return format, error behavior, or any side effects. The only added behavioral insight is that the response includes the question schema, but this is minimal and does not cover other relevant details like rate limits or authentication requirements.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the primary purpose and is free of extraneous information. It is appropriately sized for a simple getter tool.

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?

Given the absence of an output schema and annotations, the description is incomplete. It mentions the question schema but does not clarify what other details are included in the response, nor does it address potential questions about lead form ownership or access. For a simple read tool, this might be acceptable, but the lack of return-field documentation leaves gaps for an agent trying to predict the tool's output.

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 input schema has one required parameter, form_id, but schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not explain what form_id is, how to obtain it, or its format. While the parameter name is somewhat self-explanatory, the description fails to provide meaningful context beyond the schema, so it does not compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves details of a single lead form, using the specific verb 'Get' and resource 'single lead form'. It also mentions 'including its question schema', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like leads_list_forms (which lists forms) and leads_get_lead (which retrieves a lead). This is a specific and unambiguous purpose.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as leads_list_forms or leads_get_lead. It does not mention any prerequisites or context, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the name and schema.

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