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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: results are returned in reverse chronological creation order and omit question content. This helps the agent understand what the response will and will not contain without relying on assumptions.

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 a single lean sentence that fronts the core purpose and immediately appends the most important caveat (no question content) with a pointer to get_form. Every phrase earns its place, there is no fluff, and the structure makes the primary action and the exception equally clear.

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 tool, the description covers the essential behavioral nuances: team scope, ordering, and exclusion of question content. The tool has an output schema, so return values don't need to be described, and annotations plus full parameter schema cover the rest. Nothing necessary for safe and correct invocation is missing.

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 100%, and each parameter (limit, scene, titleContains) is documented with enough meaning in the schema itself. The description does not add extra parameter-level semantics, which is acceptable given the baseline of 3 when the schema fully covers the parameter detail.

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 states a specific verb ('List') and a clear resource ('forms of the current team'), and additionally distinguishes the listing behavior from detail retrieval by noting that question content is omitted and pointing to get_form for details. This makes the purpose immediately identifiable and differentiates it from sibling tools like create_form and delete_form.

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 provides clear usage context: list forms when you need an overview, and use get_form when you need question content or details. It gives explicit guidance on the alternative tool for a different need, though it does not mention other related tools like list_form_translations or list_templates, which would have made the routing even clearer.

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