read_form

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description explicitly states 'Read-only' and discloses that password and card values are redacted, which is valuable behavioral information not covered by annotations.

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 succinct and well-structured, conveying all necessary information in two sentences without redundancy or fluff.

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?

The description fully covers what the tool does, when to use it, and important constraints. Given the tool's simplicity and lack of output schema, it provides complete context for an agent to use it correctly.

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 already provides clear descriptions for both parameters (tab_id, selector). The tool description does not add extra meaning to these parameters, so it meets but does not exceed the baseline for parameter semantics.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: reading a form as filled by the user, listing specific attributes (label, type, value, etc.) and its intended use case (checking against project documents before submit). It distinguishes itself from generic read tools by focusing on forms.

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?

It provides usage context ('before an irreversible Submit') and essential caveats (sensitive values redacted, read-only). While it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools, the guidance is sufficient for an agent to decide when to invoke it.

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