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 covered. The description adds useful context about the module classification (facilities, infrastructure, null/shared), but says nothing about pagination behavior or return shape beyond what the schema notes.

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 sentences with zero waste, front-loading the verb and resource before the module classification detail. 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 list tool with zero required parameters, full schema coverage, and no output schema, the description provides enough context to invoke it correctly. It could be more complete by mentioning pagination or the relationship to other form-template tools.

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 six parameters, making 3 the baseline. The description adds a note that each record has a module of facilities, infrastructure, or null (shared), which lightly reinforces the enum but does not add syntax or usage detail for other filters.

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 (List) and resource (form templates) and defines what they are (reusable inspection, checklist, compliance, survey definitions), which is clear. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from close siblings like list_form_template_items, get_form_template, or list_form_responses, leaving a small gap.

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 offers no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and names no alternative. An agent must infer from the sibling list whether to call this versus get_form_template or list_form_responses.

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