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

Annotations already declare this a safe read (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the bar is lower; the description still adds real behavior — search results are capped at `limit` with a truthful `hasMore` flag and cannot be paginated further. It stops short of describing the response shape or default ordering.

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 tight sentences, no filler, and the scoping/pagination constraints are front-loaded before the search caveat. Every clause carries operational information.

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, the description carries the return-value burden and does mention hasMore and nextCursor, but it never enumerates what a form record contains or the default sort order. Adequate for a filtered list tool, with a small remaining 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?

Schema coverage is 80%, so the baseline is already 3, but the description adds genuine semantics: the null-vs-omit distinction for folderId, the fuzzy nature of `query` and its pagination limitation, and that `cursor` applies only to the unfiltered path. This is meaning beyond the field-level schema text.

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 and resource ('List forms in a workspace') plus scope modifiers (folder filter, fuzzy name query), so the agent can distinguish it from form_get or formSubmission_list. It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Gives concrete routing rules: folderId=null for root-level only vs omit for all, pass `query` to search, and notes cursor pagination is only available on the unfiltered list path. It even tells the agent what to do when hasMore is true (tighten the query), leaving nothing to inference.

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