Get Forms integration group

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 useful return-content context by stating the group includes its conditions and integrations, but it omits auth requirements, pagination, and richer result-shape details.

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 sentence with no wasted words. The core scope ('one integration group by id') comes first, followed immediately by the returned sub-resources.

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 simple read-by-id tool with 100% schema parameter coverage and rich safety annotations, this is nearly complete; it even mentions the returned conditions and integrations in the absence of an output schema. Only minor details like error behavior or exact return shape are left implicit.

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%, with both survey_id and hook_id documented and their sources (hooks_list, surveys_list) identified in the schema. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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: retrieves one integration group by id, and notes the payload includes its conditions and integrations. The 'by id' scope distinguishes it from forms_hooks_list, but it does not explicitly name or differentiate itself from the sibling list/get tools.

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?

Implies usage by requiring an id from hooks_list, so an agent understands it is the single-item fetch counterpart to the list tool. It gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as forms_hooks_list or the hook conditions endpoints.

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