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

Beyond the readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint annotations, the description discloses non-obvious behavior: the 2,000-submission window, 200-name limit, ordering by frequency, last-seen dates, and the empty-page risk for renamed fields. This is exactly the kind of practical behavioral detail 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 front-loaded with the core behavior and then delivers dense, purposeful caveats. No sentence is wasted, and it avoids repeating the title or schema.

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 adequately explains what the agent will receive: field names, counts, last-seen dates, ordering, and limits. It could be slightly more explicit about the exact JSON structure, but the operational meaning is sufficiently clear.

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 sole parameter, form_id, is fully documented in the schema with format and provenance ('from list_forms'). The description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning, so the high schema-coverage baseline of 3 applies.

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 specifies a clear verb and resource: it lists field names from the newest 2,000 submissions, ordered by frequency, with counts and last-seen dates. This distinguishes it sharply from siblings like get_form or list_submissions.

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 concrete usage context: read counts before filtering, watch for stale or renamed fields, and use 'q' when a field may be hidden by the 200-name cap. It stops short of explicitly naming the alternative sibling tool, but the guidance is clear and actionable.

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