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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by disclosing that results include embed status and conversion counts, which gives context beyond the annotations. It does not contradict annotations and provides useful return-field information.

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, front-loaded sentence that conveys essential information without any filler. Every word contributes to the meaning, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

Given the simple listing purpose, the combination of schema (which documents all parameters), annotations (which cover safety traits), and description (which mentions key return fields) is nearly complete. There is no output schema, but the description partially informs what the response contains. It could benefit from noting pagination behavior or that it returns an array, but this is a minor gap.

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?

All three parameters (page, limit, status) have descriptions in the schema, achieving 100% schema coverage. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ("List"), a specific resource ("signup forms"), and specifies exactly what is included ("embed status and conversion counts"). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_form (single form) and list_form_submissions (submissions), making its purpose unambiguous.

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 usage by stating what the tool does, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions. Since sibling tools like get_form could be confused for this tool, the absence of explicit guidance is a gap.

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