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

Annotations already establish the safe read-only behavior, so the description adds value beyond them by specifying reverse chronological order and the omission of question content. It also clearly scopes results to the current team. It does not detail pagination behavior, but the annotated readOnlyHint and the schema's limit parameter reduce the burden.

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 two sentences, each earning its place: the first states the core action and scope, the second conveys ordering, content omission, and the pointer to get_form. There is no redundancy or filler.

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 read-only list operation with zero required parameters, a fully described schema, and an output schema present, the description provides all necessary context: current-team scope, ordering, and a pointer to the detail tool. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to decide when to call and what to expect.

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 input schema already documents all three parameters with descriptions and covers 100% of the parameters, so the description does not need to repeat them. It adds no extra semantic detail about the parameters, but none is needed. The baseline of 3 is appropriate here.

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 action ('List') on a specific resource ('forms of the current team'), and further clarifies scope by excluding question content. The explicit pointer to get_form for details differentiates it from the most related sibling. This leaves no ambiguity about what the tool returns.

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 an explicit when-to-use alternative: the tool returns summarized form metadata, and if question content is needed, get_form should be used instead. This directly routes the agent to the correct sibling depending on the need. No further guidance is necessary given the simple read-only nature and optional filters.

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