Get Request Form

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

Annotations already cover the read-only/idempotent/non-destructive profile, yet the description still adds substantive behavior: it discloses the join between form and field definitions, the ordering of returned fields, and the key limitation that conditional fields are reported as rules rather than resolved. That limitation is exactly the kind of caveat an agent cannot get from the schema or 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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then return contents, then workflow placement, then the conditional-rule caveat — a logical order with no filler. The opening clause about walking the user through question by question is slightly redundant with the following sentence, but the paragraph stays tight for the amount of useful detail it carries.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must describe returns, and it does: field order, customer-facing labels, required flags, exact dropdown values, and rule objects. Combined with the workflow guidance and default-form behavior, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this tool.

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 form_id parameter is already documented, including the 'omit to describe the account default form' behavior. The description repeats that meaning and adds only that the id comes from list_request_forms, which is marginal value over structured data, 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 verb and resource: read one request form's fields, in portal order, with labels, required flags, dropdown values and conditional rules. It also explains the internal join with field definitions, which clarifies what the tool actually returns rather than leaving it ambiguous against list_request_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?

Explicit sequencing is given: 'Use it after list_request_forms and before create_request', plus the fallback that omitting form_id describes the account default form. That is a clear when-to-use, a named prerequisite sibling, and a next-step sibling, leaving nothing to inference.

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