form_get_external_value

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered, yet the description adds only the endpoint path. It does not explain that this is a POST-based query despite the word "Get," nor what the query returns, how resultSize limits results, or what permissions are needed. The "Get" wording sits in mild tension with readOnlyHint=false, though a POST search endpoint explains it.

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?

Two short lines, front-loaded with the action; there is no padding or repetition. The trailing HTTP verb/path is the only questionable content, but it is compact and does hint at the request shape.

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?

With no output schema, a nested request body, and an open-world annotation, the description should at least sketch what a returned external value looks like or how the source query behaves. It leaves the agent with an undefined concept ("external values") and no return-shape guidance.

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 the single body parameter and its nested filter, valueType, resultSize and externalSource fields are already documented structurally; baseline 3 applies. The description contributes nothing about how filter or valueType are interpreted or how resultSize is capped.

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?

"Get a list of external values" supplies a verb and a resource, but "external value" is never defined and the description gives no way to distinguish this from nearby siblings such as form_lookup_external_resources, form_lookup_external_resource, or form_perform_external_validation. The appended raw path signals it is a designer-side source query, but that is HTTP plumbing rather than a statement of purpose.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus the other external-value and lookup tools, no prerequisites, and no exclusion criteria. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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