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

Annotations already cover the safe read-only nature of the tool. The description adds valuable behavioral detail: the response includes language, isActive flag, public share links, and timestamps, and the primary language is deliberately not included. This is meaningful beyond what the annotations 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?

Three sentences: the first states the operation, the second itemizes the returned data, and the third explains an important exclusion. There is no filler, and the most critical recognition comes immediately.

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 single-parameter read-only list operation with an existing output schema and annotations, the description is complete. It tells the agent what will be listed, what fields are returned, and what is deliberately absent, leaving no important detail missing for correct invocation.

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 only parameter, formId, is fully described in the schema as 'The source form UUID', giving 100% schema description coverage. The description restates the form context but adds no extra semantic detail beyond the schema's own documentation.

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 begins with 'List the existing language versions (translations) of a form', which is a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself by noting the primary language lives on the form itself and pointing to get_form.language, so an agent can tell this tool apart from related get_form and get_form_translation tools.

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 clearly conveys the tool's purpose and explicitly excludes the primary language, directing the agent to get_form.language for that concern. However, it does not explicitly mention get_form_translation as the alternative for retrieving a single translation, leaving a small gap in alternative routing.

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