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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint (false). The description adds the behavioral hint 'recent' (time constraint) and clarifies the token requirement, adding value beyond annotations without contradiction.

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?

The description is a single, well-structured sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately concise, though it could benefit from a bit more detail on the time scope ('recent').

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 has no output schema and only one parameter. The description does not clarify what 'recent' means, what the response includes, or any additional context about the token. For a simple tool, this lack of detail leaves gaps in agent understanding.

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?

The sole parameter 'agentToken' has 0% schema description coverage. The tool description mentions 'provided private agent token' but does not explain the parameter's format, origin, or expected values, leaving the agent to infer meaning from context.

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 verb 'List' and the resource 'asks' (Superforms Asks), and specifies it is 'for a provided private agent token,' which distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_my_forms.

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 implies usage when an agent token is available, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., list_my_forms for personal forms, create_ask for creation). No exclusions or alternative guidance are provided.

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