Get a Forms integration run state

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so safety is covered. The description usefully adds the return-value domain (pending/success/error/canceled), but says nothing about auth requirements, failure modes, or how the state evolves.

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?

One short sentence with the resource stated up front and the state enum trailing. It is a fragment rather than a full sentence, but every word earns its place.

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 no-output-schema getter, enumerating the possible states is genuinely helpful and largely covers the return contract. Missing usage routing against the sibling notification tools and any note on how a run reaches a terminal state leaves it only adequate.

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 the single parameter is fully documented in the schema, including where the id comes from (notifications_list). The description adds nothing about the parameter, so 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?

States a specific resource and scope ('the state of one integration run') and enumerates the four possible values, so an agent can tell it apart from forms_notifications_list or forms_notifications_cancel. It stops short of explicitly distinguishing it from the nearby forms_notifications_get 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?

No statement of when to use this versus forms_notifications_get, forms_notifications_list, or forms_notifications_restart/cancel. Usage is only implied by the tool name and the mention of a single run.

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