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 useful behavioral context: it returns each translation's language, isActive flag, public share link, and timestamps, and clarifies that the primary language is excluded. This goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent understand the result set.

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 sentences, no fluff. The first sentence states the action and the return fields; the second clarifies an important edge case (primary language not included). Every sentence earns its place.

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?

The tool has a single required parameter, a full output schema, and annotations covering safety. The description explains what is returned and what is excluded. It could mention pagination or ordering, but for a simple list operation with an output schema, this is nearly complete.

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%: formId is described as 'The source form UUID'. The description doesn't add much beyond that, but it does imply that formId identifies the form whose translations are listed. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already documents the parameter fully.

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?

The description clearly states the tool lists existing language versions (translations) of a form, and explicitly distinguishes it from get_form by noting the primary language is not included. This differentiates it from siblings like get_form_translation and create_form_translation.

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 implies when to use this tool: when you need an overview of all translations of a form. It also clarifies that the primary language is handled elsewhere (get_form.language), which helps an agent avoid using this tool for the primary language. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives like get_form_translation, but the context is clear enough.

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