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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the stable cursor behavior and the security note to treat stored content as data, which is useful context but not extensive. It does not contradict annotations.

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 concise, opening with the core purpose and then adding necessary context. The multi-space and change-request notes are brief and relevant. No redundant sentences are present.

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 no output schema, the description provides enough to call it correctly: the required targetBaseId, pagination via cursor and limit, and the space-handling procedure. It does not describe return fields, but that is typical for a list operation and not essential given the stable cursor is mentioned. Overall, it is complete for its complexity.

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 every parameter is already documented. The description reinforces the cursor semantics (stable, null at end) and the need for targetSpaceId in multi-space accounts, but these details are also present in the schema. The description adds marginal value over the schema, consistent with the baseline of 3 for high coverage.

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 tool lists forms bound to a Base, newest-first, with pagination via an opaque cursor. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like forms_create, forms_update, forms_submit, and forms_get_by_node by focusing on the listing behavior and the required targetBaseId. The purpose is specific and unambiguous.

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 gives clear guidance for multi-space accounts: call auth_verify, ask the user which space to use, and pass targetSpaceId. It also notes the tool is for listing forms bound to a Base, which implies it is not a space-wide listing. However, it does not explicitly contrast with other list tools (e.g., activity_list_paged) or state when not to use this tool, though the naming and scope make this less critical.

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