Get form response options

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

Annotations already establish the operation as read-only and idempotent, and the description does not contradict them. It adds only 'Body fields: none' and a reference link, but does not describe response shape, pagination behavior, or any rate-limit/auth concerns.

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 short and free of filler, with the endpoint, body note, and reference all earning their place. The opening sentence 'Get form response options' is somewhat redundant with the tool name, preventing a perfect score.

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 combination of endpoint, schema, and annotations is enough to make a correct call mechanically, but the description lacks output semantics, usage context, and explicit differentiation from the alias sibling. The reference link helps but is not a substitute for inline 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?

The description repeats the path parameters in the endpoint URL and clarifies that there is no body, but it does not explain the meaning of planId or formId beyond their names. The query schema already documents 'embed, offset, limit' and explicit pagination, so the description adds limited value over the schema.

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 states a clear verb and resource ('Get form response options') and includes the exact REST endpoint, which precisely identifies the operation. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling xmatters_get_form_response_options_alias, so it loses the top score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as xmatters_get_form_response_options_alias or xmatters_create_form_response_options. It only states the endpoint and gives a reference link, leaving the selection decision to inference.

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