Get Forms survey access

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds real value beyond them by spelling out the returned shape (one entry per action) and the vocabulary of the access field (owner / restricted / common / public, with public meaning anyone with the link). It does not mention what permission is required to view access, but for a read tool this is minor.

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 tight sentences, no padding, and the core answer (who may edit / who may fill, per action) is front-loaded ahead of the enumeration of access values.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must sketch the return value, and it does: one entry per action plus the meaning of each access level and the users/groups listing. What is missing is any note about pagination or the permission needed to read access, but for a one-parameter read tool this is close to complete.

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 (survey_id) and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents it fully (24-char hex from surveys_list). The description adds nothing about the parameter, which is the expected baseline 3 when the schema carries the burden.

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 states a concrete verb+resource: it returns who may edit (change) and who may fill (submit) a form, one entry per action. That is specific and an agent can tell it is a read/list of access entries rather than the mutation siblings. It never explicitly names forms_access_grant/update/revoke, so sibling differentiation is only implicit.

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?

There is no when-to-use statement and no alternatives named. The agent must infer that this is the read counterpart to forms_access_grant, forms_access_update and forms_access_revoke from the name alone. No prerequisites or exclusion conditions are given.

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