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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the meaningful behavioral fact that the same tool returns two entirely different resources depending on formId, but says nothing about auth needs, pagination, or result volume for a read against a remote Page.

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, zero filler, and the branch condition is front-loaded so an agent can decide the mode before reading further.

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 read-only list tool with no output schema and no required parameters, the description covers the key branch and the key parameter. It omits any note on pagination, result shape, or whether a connection (accountId/profileId) is needed to fetch forms, which is minor against what the schema supplies.

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?

formId carries no schema description, and the description is what gives it meaning (submissions vs forms). accountId and profileId are already documented in the schema at 67% coverage, so the description's value is concentrated on the one undocumented parameter, which is above the baseline 3.

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 states a concrete verb (list) and two concrete resources (lead forms, form submissions) and makes the mode switch explicit via the formId condition. It does not differentiate against siblings, but no sibling covers lead forms, so the differentiation need is low.

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?

It gives a clear conditional rule for which mode applies: no formId yields the Page's lead forms, formId yields that form's submissions. It stops short of naming prerequisites or an alternative tool when leads are needed another way.

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