Get form structure

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. Because there is no output schema, the description's enumeration of what is returned (question ids, names, types, plus other field groups) adds real value beyond the annotations.

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 sentences, no filler, with the core retrieve-and-what-you-get content front-loaded and the actionable follow-up ('use the question ids when creating submissions') placed last. Every clause earns its place.

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, the description carries the return-value burden and does describe the response contents adequately for a read-only fetch. Minor gaps remain: it does not say whether all field groups are always present or how missing formId errors are surfaced.

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?

There is a single parameter at 100% schema description coverage, and the schema already explains that formId is the public ID from list_forms or the form URL. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the schema baseline of 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Get a form's questions') and enumerates the returned content groups (calculations, URL parameters, scheduling, payment, quiz), which lets an agent see this is the single-form detail fetch. It never explicitly contrasts itself with list_forms, so differentiation is inferable rather than stated.

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?

'Use the question ids when creating submissions' hints at the downstream workflow and why an agent would call this tool, but it is guidance about the output, not about tool selection. There is no statement of when to prefer get_form over list_forms, no prerequisites, and no exclusions.

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