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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context not in annotations: responses exist even without an email, and they create no marketing consent or external booking. It does not disclose return format details or pagination behavior beyond naming hasMore.

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 compact sentences that front-load the core read action, then add clarifying behavioral facts, then pagination. Little waste, though the pagination note is terse and could specify defaults or max.

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 read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description conveys the returned content and a key caveat, but omits how formId scopes results, what pageId requires, and pagination defaults. Adequate but with clear gaps given 0% schema coverage.

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% across four parameters, so the description must compensate. It only mentions offset/limit pagination and hasMore, leaving pageId (required), formId filtering, and limit bounds (max 100) unexplained; the schema gives types and bounds but no meaning. Compensation is partial and incomplete for the required and filter parameters.

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 (lire) and resource (réponses aux formulaires à champs libres) scoped to a page of the current project, and notes what is included (form, labels/types/fields, responses). It is clear what it does, but does not explicitly distinguish itself from close siblings like list_form_responses, list_crm_form_responses, or get_form_response.

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?

Usage is implied by 'réponses réellement enregistrées' and the negative note that these responses create no marketing consent or external booking, which helps rule out CRM/booking-oriented siblings. However, there is no explicit when-to-use-vs-alternative guidance pointing at list_form_responses or list_crm_form_responses.

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