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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description's 'Read-only' merely restates the annotation and adds no behavioral context such as pagination, filtering semantics, or scale.

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?

A single tight sentence with the verb and resource front-loaded and the domain clarification trailing. No redundant or filler phrasing; every clause earns its place.

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 low-complexity, fully-filterable read-only list tool with 100% schema coverage and annotations covering safety, the definition is largely sufficient. The only minor gap is that, with no output schema, the description does not characterize the returned records' shape.

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 all six optional filters (page, status, per_page, subject_id, template_id, subject_type) are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides, 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 concrete verb (List) and resource (form responses) and clarifies the domain object as 'completed or in-progress fill-outs of a form, attached to a work order or PM.' This distinguishes it partly from list_form_response_answers, but it does not explicitly name or contrast any sibling tool.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_form_response, list_form_response_answers, or list_form_templates. The intent is only implied by the word 'List' and the domain description.

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