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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: the tool reports usage, project assignments, and inert status. These details help the agent understand what the tool exposes, though it does not describe pagination or exact output structure.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The main action and resource are front-loaded, and the additional sentence adds meaningful output semantics without unnecessary detail.

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 zero-parameter read-only listing tool, the description is nearly complete. It explains what will be listed and what kinds of information the results provide, though it does not specify the exact return shape or whether pagination is involved. Given the simplicity of the operation, this is a minor gap.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the description carries no parameter documentation burden. With no inputs to explain, the baseline of 4 applies; there is nothing missing from the description in this dimension.

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 states a specific verb ('List'), a specific resource ('Dplooy Forms endpoints'), and an additional scope ('with usage'). It also clarifies what information is shown: which endpoints are assigned to projects and which are inert. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like get_form or list_booking_pages.

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 clearly conveys that this tool is for listing Dplooy Forms endpoints and their assignment/usage status. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the resource-specific scope makes the intended context obvious among the sibling tools.

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