get_form

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It indicates a read operation ('Get a form') but does not explicitly state it has no side effects. The user_google_email parameter suggests an auth requirement, but its necessity is not explained, and there is no mention of potential errors or rate limits.

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, starting with a clear one-line purpose, followed by structured Args and Returns sections. Every sentence contributes value, with no unnecessary repetition.

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 is fairly complete for a simple retrieval tool, covering the purpose, parameters, and return value. However, it does not explain why user_google_email is required or address potential errors, which would be useful for an agent to invoke 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 schema has no descriptions for its parameters, but the description thoroughly explains both user_google_email and form_id with types and meanings, adding critical semantic value. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of detail.

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 explicitly states 'Get a form' and elaborates on the return value as 'Form details including title, description, questions, and URLs.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_form_response or list_form_responses, which deal with responses, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 form metadata through its return value, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_form_response or list_form_responses. No when-not-to-use or alternative guidance is provided, leaving the context implicit.

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