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 contributes genuine extra behavior: results are ordered newest-first and capped at 200, which is directly useful for pagination and result-set expectations.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that carries the resource, ordering, and result cap with zero filler.

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, and one required param is fully documented. What remains ambiguous is the relationship to siblings such as fillo_list_drafts and fillo_publish_form: the title says 'published versions' while the description says 'every stored schema version', leaving whether drafts are included unresolved.

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 100% and the schema itself documents that 'form' accepts an id, slug, or push handle. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 names the resource precisely ('every stored schema version of a form') and adds scope details (newest first, up to 200) that let an agent recognize it as a version-history read. It does not, however, differentiate itself from close siblings like fillo_list_drafts or fillo_list_forms, and the verb 'list' is only implied.

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 call this tool, when not to, or which sibling to prefer (e.g., list_drafts vs versions). The agent must infer the use case purely from the name and resource phrase.

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