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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces read-only. It adds genuinely useful behavior beyond annotations: newest-first ordering, inclusion of full configuration/fields/files, and that archived forms are silently excluded unless explicitly requested.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with what is returned, followed by the archived caveat, the ID-discovery purpose, and the sibling disambiguation. Every sentence carries actionable information with no padding.

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?

With an output schema present, return-value documentation is unnecessary, and the description still covers payload contents, ordering, default filtering, the primary downstream use (finding a form id) and sibling routing. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly 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 already documents limit, search, status, testmode and both cursors in detail, so the baseline is 3. The description's param-relevant claims (archived default exclusion, no field/file/slug filtering) largely restate what the schema already says, adding little beyond the schema text.

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 and resource ('List the form pages on the Checkout Page account') and even describes the payload shape ('full configuration, fields and files') and ordering ('newest first'). It explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling page types by naming list_checkout_pages and list_events.

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?

Gives explicit routing: 'this is how to find a form id for get_form, update_form and list_submissions', plus clear when-not guidance ('Checkout pages and events are separate page types: use list_checkout_pages and list_events'). The archived-default behavior tells the agent when it must pass a status filter.

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