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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new context: visibility is scope-limited and fail-closed, so an agent knows results may be empty by design rather than by error. Return-shape disclosure is also present, though pagination/limits are not mentioned.

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 core guidance (what it returns, use the udid next, scope-limited) is front-loaded and easy to scan. The trailing '| EN: list, formdefs' bilingual tag is redundant given the title and slightly dilutes the otherwise efficient structure.

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?

With no output schema and no parameters, the description carries the full burden and does so: it enumerates the return fields, explains the visibility rule, and links to the follow-up tool. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly and interpret an empty result.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline is 4. Schema coverage is 100% and empty, and the description correctly does not invent parameter semantics.

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+resource (list all visible formdefs) and enumerates the returned fields (udid, title, field count, per-field key/label/widget/required), which an agent can distinguish from sibling show_formdef. The scope constraint (only forms in your scopes, fail-closed) further sharpens what 'list' means here.

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?

Explicitly positions itself as the FIRST STEP for choosing the right form and tells the agent to take the udid to show_formdef, giving a clear use context and a named downstream tool. It stops short of naming exclusion conditions versus adjacent siblings like onto_formdef_list_templates, so it is not a full 5.

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