get_form

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, closed-world and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond that by enumerating the returned status values and the field metadata shape. It leaves out edge behavior such as what happens for a nonexistent form_id, but the added context is real.

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, both front-loaded with the payload description first and the usage/exclusion second. Every clause conveys information; nothing is repeated from the title or annotations.

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 single-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and an output schema, the description covers purpose, expected return contents and the key sibling relationship. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly without further text.

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 single parameter is fully documented in the schema ('The form UUID or public id'), so coverage is 100% and the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no extra meaning about form_id — no note on UUID vs public id formats or how to obtain one. Baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource and enumerates exactly what comes back: status (with the draft/live/closed enumeration), public URL, close time, response limit, and per-field metadata. The final sentence ('Does not return responses') explicitly separates it from list_form_responses, so an agent can pick it without opening a 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?

Gives concrete usage scenarios: inspecting what questions a form asks, and mapping field keys from list_form_responses output back to questions. It also names a boundary condition (no responses returned). It does not address when to use this versus list_forms for discovery, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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