form_search_form_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, idempotent=false, destructive=false, openWorld=true, so safety coverage comes from structured data, not the description. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not clarify that 'fetch' is actually a POST with an array body, what a 'status' contains, whether IDs that don't exist cause an error or are silently skipped, or whether any rate limits apply. The wording 'Fetch/Retrieve' also reads as a safe read while readOnlyHint=false says otherwise, a tension worth resolving explicitly.

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?

'Fetch form status' restates the title (which is itself the endpoint path) and is then repeated by 'Retrieve statuses of forms…', and the raw 'POST /form-service/api/forms/fetchStatus' line duplicates the title verbatim. The content is short, but three of the four lines carry almost no marginal information.

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 is the only place the shape of a 'status' could be explained, and it is not: an agent cannot tell whether the response maps IDs to state strings, objects, or errors. For a tool with a required array body and multiple form-related siblings, this leaves the caller guessing.

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% (body described as 'The target reference IDs', type enum documented), so the schema already carries the parameter semantics and a 3 baseline applies. The description's mention of 'reference IDs' merely echoes the schema wording and adds no batch-size, format, or partial-match guidance.

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: 'Retrieve statuses of forms specified by reference IDs', which is more informative than the name alone. It does not distinguish itself from nearby siblings such as form_fetch_form, form_search_by_source_and_type, or form_get_forms_versions, so an agent still has to infer the boundary.

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 use this tool versus the many other form_* retrieval tools, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The only hint is the phrase 'specified by reference IDs', which implies an ID-driven lookup but never says so explicitly.

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