Get Forms question show condition

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: clause items are id-less, so mutation must happen at the group level via conditions_question_update, and it hints at the returned shape.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with what is returned, then the one non-obvious constraint. No filler.

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 usefully sketches the return shape (operator + clause items) and flags the id-less clause constraint. Complete enough for a 3-param read tool, though it could mention pagination or empty/missing-group behavior.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents survey_id, question_id and condition_id, including their source tools. The description adds only the notion that operator/items are the group contents, which is marginal beyond the schema baseline.

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+resource: fetching a single condition group of a question by id, and names the returned fields (operator, clause items). It is clearly a single-item get rather than a list or mutation, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with forms_conditions_question_list.

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 clear context plus a routing hint: clauses have no ids, so editing one must be done by replacing the whole group via conditions_question_update. It does not explicitly state when to prefer this over the *_list tool, but the single-group-by-id framing implies it.

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