get_form

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false easons. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail by listing the exact return fields and explicitly warning that submission answers are excluded. This goes beyond the annotations while remaining consistent with them.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the core action and purpose, then provides compact Args and Returns sections. Every sentence earns its place, including the useful 'Does NOT include submission answers' exclusion. There is no fluff or repetition.

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 read-only, single-parameter tool with output schema presentaine, this is complete: it specifies the parameter source, the return shape, and the key negative case. The agent has enough information to select and invoke this tool correctly without consulting siblings or guessing.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage on form_id, so the description must compensate. It does: 'form_id: Numeric form id from list_forms' adds the critical provenance detail that the ID should come from list_forms fruition. It also confirms the numeric type, which aligns with the schema's integer type. This is sufficient for a single required parameter.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Get a form's full definition including questions, options, and shares.' It also differentiates itself from related tools by explicitly stating it does NOT include submission answers and pointing to list_submissions. This makes the tool's scope and unique purpose clear.

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?

The description gives clear context: use this when you need the full form definition, including questions, options, shares, and submission count. It explicitly excludes submission answers and routes the agent to list_submissions for those. It does not distinguish from list_forms or get_question, but the 'full definition' scope and the form_id source from list_forms provide adequate guidance.

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