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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about what each entry contains (fields, where submissions go, message counts), but says nothing about result volume, caching, or auth requirements for a tool that can span all sites.

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?

One dense sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the scope qualifier and return-value preview packed in without filler.

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 no-required-param, read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description covers scope and the shape of returned data, and annotations cover safety. Nothing essential to correct invocation 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% and the single 'site' parameter is already fully documented, including the omit-for-all behavior. The description only restates that scoping, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource (list contact forms) with scope (a site or all sites) and previews the returned content (fields, submission destination, message counts). This implicitly separates it from form_messages, set_form, and remove_form, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 parenthetical '(or all your sites)' implies the omittable-site use case, and the schema confirms it ('Leave out for all of them'). But there is no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives guidance nor any exclusion pointing the agent to form_messages for actual submissions.

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