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 still adds real behavioral facts beyond that: results are capped at the 100 most recent deliveries, the payload includes outcome/error information, and raw submission data is deliberately omitted. It does not explain ordering or whether the cap is truncation-only, but the added context is substantive.

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 compact sentence with no filler, and the key constraints (100 most recent, no raw data) are stated up front. It is arguably too short rather than padded, but structurally clean.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of explaining returns, and it only gestures at 'résultat et erreurs sans données brutes' without describing shape or fields. More importantly, the sole required input 'id' is entirely unexplained, and the description is written in French while sibling tool names and annotations are English, which adds friction for tool selection.

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% for the single required parameter 'id', and the description never mentions it. It is unclear whether 'id' identifies the form, the workspace, or an individual delivery, so the description fails to compensate for the undocumented schema.

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 gives a recognizable action (view/consult) plus a concrete payload: the last 100 submissions with result and errors, explicitly excluding raw data. However, it never distinguishes this tool from the many closely named siblings such as list_form_submissions, list_form_responses, list_crm_form_responses or export_form_responses, so an agent cannot tell which one to pick from the description alone.

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 statement, no prerequisite (e.g. what the required id must refer to), and no mention of alternatives. The agent must infer from the sibling names which listing tool is appropriate for which situation.

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