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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context beyond annotations: newest-first ordering, next_cursor pagination, and connection-scoped visibility. These are behavioral traits an agent needs to correctly interpret results.

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?

Two concise sentences with zero filler. The first packs resource, scope, ordering, and pagination; the second covers the optional filter. Every phrase contributes 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?

For a simple paginated list endpoint with three optional parameters, the description covers scope, ordering, pagination, and filtering. The input schema handles parameter mechanics. No output schema exists, but the mention of next_cursor adequately signals the pagination response shape.

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?

Input schema has 100% parameter description coverage, so the description does not need to repeat limit or cursor details. It adds slight value for team_id by saying 'list one team only,' which reinforces the schema's conditional requirement, but this is marginal.

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?

Description clearly states the resource ('Forms'), the scope ('the connection can see'), and the ordering ('newest first'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_form and list_submissions even without naming them.

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 instruction 'Pass team_id to list one team only' gives concrete conditional guidance for narrowing results. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use the tool, but the scope and filter condition are clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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