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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered structurally. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context the annotations do not: which form providers are enumerated (CF7, WPForms), that the ids are consumed as a block's default `form` attribute, and a mandatory doc-read prerequisite. Return format is left to the output schema.

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?

Compact and front-loaded — the resource and its id payload come first, followed by the contract rule. The block-facing sentence (

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, the description need not document the return shape; it covers purpose, the supported form sources, and the prerequisite doc. For a zero-param read tool this is close to complete, with only the absence of an explicit alternative routing keeping it below 5.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies; there are no arguments whose semantics the description needs to clarify. Nothing in the text misrepresents the (empty) input.

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 the resource and scope precisely: "The forms on this site (Contact Form 7, WPForms) with their ids" — a specific artifact with an identifiable return payload. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get-cf7-form or create-cf7-form by being the enumeration of all forms. The trailing block-contract sentence is about consumption, not retrieval, which slightly dilutes the front-loaded purpose.

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 an explicit prerequisite ("read [forms-contract] before the first call") and explains why the tool exists — a block's `form` attribute must be drawn from one of these ids. It does not state when-not to use it or name an alternative list tool, so it stops short of the 5 tier.

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