Get a Forms integration run

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description contributes the one thing the annotations cannot: the shape of the payload (input, answers, failures). It says nothing about error behavior or what happens for a missing notification id.

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?

It is a single short, front-loaded sentence, which is appropriate for a one-parameter getter. The phrasing 'what the integration was given, answered and failed with' is grammatically awkward and ends on a dangling preposition, mildly reducing clarity.

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 does carry some return-value burden and partially discharges it by naming the three payload facets. It remains incomplete on the status/error distinction against sibling tools and on failure modes for an invalid notification id.

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 the single parameter already documents itself as a notification id sourced from notifications_list. The description adds no format, range, or lookup semantics beyond that, so the baseline of 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?

The description conveys that this returns a single integration run's payload — what the integration received, answered and failed with — which is more than the title alone. However, it never states the retrieval key (notification id) and uses 'integration run' terminology that does not match the tool name or the notification_id parameter, so the agent cannot easily place it against forms_notifications_status_get or forms_notifications_errors_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?

There is no when-to-use guidance at all. With siblings forms_notifications_list, forms_notifications_status_get and forms_notifications_errors_list in the same namespace, the agent gets no help deciding between fetching a single run, its status, or its errors.

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