Get a form

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does meaningful work: it discloses the return payload (full field + settings definition) and the error semantics (unknown id reports not found instead of returning another tenant's form, i.e., tenant isolation). It does not state permission requirements or whether the read has side effects, so it stops short of exhaustive, but adds real behavioral value.

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?

Two tight sentences with zero waste. The return scope is front-loaded and the error/tenant-isolation caveat follows where it is most useful.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description correctly names what is returned (field and settings definition) and covers the not-found case. For a single-param read tool this is nearly complete; only auth/permission expectations are unaddressed.

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 coverage is 100% and formId is documented as "UUID of the form" in the schema itself. The description adds no additional format, sourcing, or constraint detail about the parameter, so the baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

Specific verb+resource ("Get one form") with an explicit scope of what is returned: the full field and settings definition. It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling list_forms (single vs. list) and the mutating create_form/delete_form, without needing to open any schema.

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?

Retrieval-by-id usage is implied by "Get one form" plus the required formId, and the tenant-scoped lookup is explained. However, no sibling is named as an alternative nor is any when/when-not condition given (e.g., use list_forms to discover ids first). Adequate but with a clear gap.

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