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. The description contributes the page size (50 responses per page), which is real behavioral context, but says nothing about ordering, whether all responses or a subset are returned by default, or cost of paging.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler, and the resource/scope statement is front-loaded before the filter and pagination notes. It is close to minimal, though the fragment style ('Filtrer par formId ; 50 réponses par page') reads as notes rather than a coherent instruction.

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?

For a two-parameter read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers the resource, its sources, attached data, the filter, and page size – enough to call it correctly. The remaining gap is disambiguation from the cluster of near-identical form-response listing siblings.

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 explains formId as an optional filter and implies the page param via '50 réponses par page', but never states that page is 1-based or what happens when formId is omitted (all forms?), leaving the two parameters only half explained.

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?

Names a specific verb (list) and resource (CRM form responses) and scopes the sources covered (Sites, Outil, external forms) plus what is attached (tags, contacts). It does not distinguish itself from the numerous similar siblings such as list_form_responses, list_form_submissions, list_form_deliveries, or get_contact_form_responses, so an agent cannot tell which of those to pick.

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 only guidance is 'Filtrer par formId', which describes a parameter rather than when to choose this tool. There is no stated condition, prerequisite, or exclusion relative to the many other form-listing and contact-response tools in the sibling set.

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