Get Forms key set

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: the shape of the response (total/used/is_enabled) and the scope limit that key material is deliberately unavailable over MCP.

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, front-loaded with what is returned, then the id-lookup path, then the scope exclusion. 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 carries the return-value burden and does so by naming the key fields. Combined with the annotation-covered safety profile and the CLI scope note, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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% and both parameters are self-documented, so the baseline is 3. The description only echoes the keyset_id source (keysets_list) already stated in the schema and says nothing about survey_id.

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 ('One key set's settings and usage') and enumerates the returned fields (total, used, is_enabled). It is clearly distinguishable from keysets_list, which it names as the id-lookup sibling.

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 a concrete prerequisite ('Look up keyset_id via keysets_list') and an explicit when-not boundary: downloading actual keys is a CLI operation not exposed over MCP. It stops short of framing the full use case vs keysets_list, but the routing is clear.

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