get_form_translation

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses concrete behavior: it returns an error when the language version does not exist yet, includes mirrored fields[] and report in the result, and assumes a specific editing workflow. This is meaningful behavioral context that is not present in the annotations or schema alone.

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, each earning its place: the first states what the tool does, the second gives workflow guidance, and the third covers the error case and prerequisite. Information is front-loaded and there is no redundancy or fluff.

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 tool is simple (two parameters) and has a full output schema, so return-value details need not be repeated. The description covers the success case, error case, prerequisite, and how this tool fits into the broader translation workflow, making it complete for an agent to invoke 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both formId and language are already fully described, including the language enum. The description does not add parameter-level details beyond what the schema provides, so the high-coverage baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the operation: 'Read the full content of one language version (translation) of a form.' It also specifies what is included ('mirrored fields[] and report') and distinguishes this read tool from related siblings like update_form_translation and create_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?

It explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool ('Use this to fetch the current draft before translating') and names the follow-up tool ('save with update_form_translation'). It also gives an important exclusion condition: if the language version doesn't exist, create it first with create_form_translation.

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