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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context: the default state is "ready" and results are paginated via cursor. It does not mention ordering, page-size limits, or what an exhausted cursor means.

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?

Three short fragments with no filler, and the resource scoping is front-loaded ahead of the state and pagination notes. Slightly telegraphic, but nothing is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. For a no-required-parameter list tool the description covers filtering and paging, but omits the limit parameter and any guidance on default page size or result ordering.

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 0%, so the description must carry the load. It fully documents the state parameter (ready default, processing, failed, all) and the cursor/pagination mechanism, but says nothing about limit, whose only hint is its schema default of 20. Partial compensation, not full.

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 opens with a noun phrase, "Forms in the user's Emboss library," which largely restates the title "List your forms" rather than stating a verb+resource action. It does add scope (the user's own library) but gives no differentiation from siblings like find_form or get_form, so an agent must infer from the name that this enumerates forms.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus find_form, get_form, or get_batch. The description implies filtering by state and paging, but never says when listing is the right choice or any prerequisite conditions.

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