Get subscription forms in a plan

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

Annotations already declare the operation read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the baseline is satisfied. The description adds the 'Body fields: none' detail and a reference link, which provide minor invocation context, but no additional behavioral traits such as response size, ordering, or error semantics.

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 very short and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by the endpoint, body note, and reference. Every sentence serves a purpose, though the endpoint duplicates the tool's purpose and could be considered slightly repetitive.

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 one required path parameter and optional query parameters, the description is mostly adequate given the annotations and schema's query documentation. However, it does not describe return values or clarify how this differs from the global 'get_subscription_forms' tool, leaving room for confusion in a large sibling set.

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 only 50% (query is described, path is not). The description does not explain what planId is or how it relates to the returned subscription forms. 'Body fields: none' is redundant since the schema defines no body. The reference link is helpful but does not compensate for the missing parameter meaning.

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 specific verb and resource ('Get subscription forms in a plan') and includes the exact HTTP endpoint, making the operation unambiguous. It is implicitly distinguished from sibling 'xmatters_get_subscription_forms' by the 'in a plan' scope, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 is given about when to use this tool versus related tools like xmatters_get_subscription_forms or xmatters_get_forms_in_a_plan. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or contextual cues to help an agent choose this tool over others.

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