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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive behavior, but the description adds substantial context beyond them: Service Administrator requirement, application-restricted policy blocking, live inventory read on each call, and that it returns metadata rather than form definitions or member references. These are exactly the behavioral constraints an agent needs.

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 dense and front-loaded with the core purpose, then layers auth, policy, return-type, and pagination guidance. It is somewhat run-on and could be split for readability, but every sentence carries useful operational information.

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 no output schema, the description compensates by explaining that the return is metadata rather than form definitions or member references, and it names pagination signals (nextOffset, truncated). Combined with auth and policy constraints, an agent has enough to call and interpret this tool correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds protocol-level meaning beyond the schema by tying offset to nextOffset and introducing truncated as a completeness check, though it does not elaborate on limit or connection/application defaults beyond what the schema already says.

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 (lists form names and paths) and distinguishes the two sources: Oracle Migration versus sample forms on the demo. It also names the downstream uses (read_planning, selective export), so an agent can distinguish it from sibling read/export tools without opening schemas.

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?

Explicitly says when to use it: to find a form name before read_planning or to discover current forms before a selective export. It also gives concrete pagination protocol (start at offset 0, follow nextOffset, check truncated before treating inventory as complete) and warns that saved snapshots can miss later forms.

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