read_form

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description adds genuinely new behavioral context: sensitive fields come back [redacted] and the tool is 'on request' (invoked deliberately rather than passively). The redaction rule is material information an agent cannot get from the annotations or schema.

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?

Front-loads the core action, then the returned fields, then the guardrail and alternative. The em-dash field list is dense but every clause carries distinct information; no filler sentences.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the burden of describing return values — and it does so field by field, plus redaction behavior. With both optional params fully covered by the schema, nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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%, so both optional parameters (tab_id, selector) are already fully documented in the schema, including the omission defaults. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, so the 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 verb and resource ('Read a form as the user filled it') and enumerates exactly what is returned — label, type, value, checked/selected, required-but-empty, validity. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling fill_form, so an agent can separate read vs. write without opening either schema.

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 the use case ('to check it against the project's documents before an irreversible Submit') and names the alternative for the opposite intent ('to change values use fill_form'). Both when-to-use and which-other-tool are stated explicitly.

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