Get Forms integration-group condition

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only that the result carries an operator and clauses; it says nothing about auth requirements, error behavior for a missing condition, or nesting under an integration group.

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?

A single front-loaded clause with zero filler; the resource, the lookup key, and the returned fields are all stated up front.

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's mention of operator and clauses is a useful partial disclosure of return shape. However, for a three-parameter read tool that nests under hooks/forms, it leaves the calling context and failure modes unstated.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and each parameter is documented with its source tool (surveys_list, hooks_list, matching *_list). The description adds nothing beyond 'by id', so the 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?

Specific verb + resource: it fetches a single integration-group condition group by id and even names the payload (operator and clauses). It is distinguishable from the *_list/*_create/*_update siblings, though the description never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied by 'by id' and by the sibling naming convention (forms_conditions_hook_list), but there is no explicit statement of when to call this versus the list tool, nor of any prerequisite (e.g. that the hook/condition must already exist).

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