Get Forms integration

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 one genuinely useful behavioral note - the response carries 'type-specific settings' - hinting that the return shape varies by subscription type, but says nothing further about errors, missing ids, or response structure.

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 short clause with zero filler and the key qualifier ('one', 'by id') front-loaded. It reads as a fragment rather than a sentence, but nothing wasted.

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 is the only place return-shape information could live; 'type-specific settings' gestures at variability but does not explain it. For a simple three-id lookup whose annotations and schema are complete, this is minimally 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 description coverage is 100%, and the schema already documents all three params including their source list tools, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 names the resource ('one integration of a hook') and scopes it as a single-item lookup by id, which an agent can distinguish from the list/update/delete siblings. The verb is only implied by the tool name rather than stated, and the term 'integration' differs from the name's 'subscriptions', so it is clear but not fully crisp.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus the alternatives (forms_subscriptions_list to enumerate ids, forms_hooks_get, forms_subscriptions_update). The agent must infer the use case purely from the name.

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