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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered for free. The description adds only that results are tied to a project contact and include 'collectes associées', but says nothing about volume, pagination, ordering, or what an empty/missing contact yields — for a fetch tool with no output schema, that is thin.

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?

One short sentence with no filler, which is appropriately sized. But brevity here comes from under-specification rather than tight writing, and the key scoping detail (which entity the id refers to) is absent.

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?

A retrieval tool with an undocumented identifier, no output schema, no return-shape hint, and no differentiation from many near-duplicate siblings leaves the agent without enough to invoke it confidently. The 'collectes associées' mention hints at a composite return but never clarifies it.

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?

The single required parameter 'id' has 0% schema description coverage, so the description carries the full burden of explaining it. The phrase 'associé à un contact' weakly implies the id is a contact identifier, but this is never stated, and it is equally plausible that it is a project or form id given the tool name.

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 (form responses plus associated collections) and scopes it to a project contact, so the broad subject is inferable. However, it is a noun phrase with no verb, and it does not distinguish itself from closely named siblings such as get_form_response, list_form_responses, list_crm_form_responses, or list_form_submissions, leaving the agent unsure what this tool uniquely returns.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance at all, despite a crowded sibling space with at least four other form-response retrieval/export tools. The only implicit hint is the 'contact du projet' scoping, which the agent must infer as the selecting condition.

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