reach_getFormDetailsV1

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a notable behavioral aspect (no ready-made embed snippet) which is helpful, but it does not describe the response format, error scenarios, or any permissions needed. It goes beyond a simple 'get form details' statement, but more detail would be beneficial.

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 concise, two sentences, and front-loaded with the core purpose. The second sentence adds a critical caveat about the embed snippet, which is valuable. No filler or redundancy, though it could be slightly more structured if longer.

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 simple retrieval tool with 2 well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers the key points: what it returns (URL and tags) and a notable caveat (no embed snippet). It doesn't need to explain return values since there's no output schema, but more detail on the response structure might be expected if this were a complex tool; it seems sufficient.

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 schema already describes both parameters as 'Form uuid parameter' and 'Profile uuid parameter' with 100% coverage. The description doesn't add any additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 gets a single form and returns its hosted template URL and tags applied to contacts. It distinguishes this from the sibling tools like reach_listFormsV1 (listing forms) and reach_getAutomationDetailsV1 (automation details) by specifying it's for form details.

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 implies usage for retrieving a single form's details, but it does not explicitly state when to use this over other reach_* tools. It mentions there is no embed snippet, which hints at a use case for building custom embeds, but it does not provide explicit context or alternatives.

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