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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds behavior beyond that: the returned field set, sort order (newest first), a page-size cap of 50, and the exact pagination protocol ('if next_cursor is not null, pass it back as cursor'). That is precisely the operational detail an agent needs and that annotations cannot express.

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 tight paragraphs, front-loaded with what it lists and returns, followed by when to use it and the pagination mechanics. Every sentence carries information; no filler or restated title.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description is not obliged to enumerate return values, yet it still summarizes them usefully. Combined with the usage guidance and pagination instructions, the only real gap is the unexplained status filter parameter.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden, and it compensates for only two of three parameters: cursor handling is spelled out and the 50-per-page cap implies limit behavior. The status enum (draft/open/closed) is never mentioned, leaving an undocumented filter the agent may need.

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 ('List the forms this person owns'), adds scope ('newest first') and explicitly names what is NOT returned ('not the questions'), routing to the sibling get_form. An agent can distinguish this from get_form, search, and list_responses without opening any schema.

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 three concrete triggers ('what forms do I have?', finding an id before editing, resolving a named form to an id) and names the alternative tool plus the condition that selects it ('Call get_form when you need the questions themselves'). Nothing is left to inference.

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