get_form

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: it identifies where outcome codes live (report.outcomeAnalysis.outcomes) and clarifies the meaning of language fields in the response.

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?

Three sentences carry substantial, non-redundant information. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the follow-up sentences add only high-value context about outcome analysis and translation languages.

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 read-only single-form retrieval tool with one required parameter and an output schema, the description is complete: it states scope, what is returned, and two edge-context behaviors. Nothing essential for the agent to invoke it correctly is missing.

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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters well. The description mentions fields[] and report configuration, which loosely map to includeFields and includeReport, but does not add meaningful parameter-level detail beyond 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'View one form of the current team in full,' and clarifies what is included (questions list fields[] and report configuration). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like list_forms and get_form_translation.

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 gives clear context: use it to view a single form in detail, including raw question data and report config. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the scope is unambiguous enough to guide selection among the many sibling tools.

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