Get a form in a plan — recipients

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds only the endpoint and body fields, but no behavioral details like return format, pagination defaults, or error conditions. It doesn't contradict annotations, but adds minimal value beyond them.

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?

Very short and direct, front-loading the purpose. Includes the endpoint and a reference link, both useful, with no wasted words. It's concise without being under-specified.

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 GET with read-only annotations and no output schema, it covers the core action but lacks details on the response structure or pagination behavior (though the schema's query description covers offset/limit). It's adequate for a basic retrieval but not fully comprehensive.

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 description does not mention parameters. The schema provides a description for the 'query' object (pagination, offset/limit) but the 'path.formId' is only typed as string. With 50% schema coverage, the description should compensate for the undocumented formId semantics but does not.

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 clear verb and resource: 'Get a form in a plan — recipients' with the explicit endpoint. It distinguishes from sibling tools like xmatters_get_a_form_in_a_plan and xmatters_get_a_form_in_a_plan_sender_permissions by focusing on recipients, though it doesn't contrast with the nested recipients variant.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as xmatters_get_a_form_in_a_plan_nested_recipients or xmatters_get_forms_in_a_plan. The description only states what it does, leaving selection to the agent.

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