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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds the underlying endpoint (GET /order-forms) and the shape of the returned fields, which is mild but real added context. It says nothing about result volume, default ordering, or whether all forms or only active ones are returned.

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, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by the returned fields; nothing is padded. The trailing 'GET /order-forms' is marginally redundant but cheap and aids API traceability.

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?

With no output schema, the description does list the fields returned, and pagination is fully specified in the schema, so an agent can call this correctly. It would be stronger if it noted whether results are filtered by status or tenant, but nothing essential is missing for a simple read-only list.

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 coverage is 100% and both parameters (page, per_page) carry precise descriptions including defaults and the next_page continuation hint, so the schema fully carries this dimension. The description adds no parameter meaning of its own, making the baseline 3 correct.

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 ('List') and resource ('order forms'), and the parenthetical 'the public booking forms customers use' defines the resource for agents unfamiliar with Aryeo terminology. It also names the returned fields (title, URL, scheduling settings), so the agent knows what it gets. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like aryeo_list_orders or aryeo_list_products, which is the only thing keeping it below a 5.

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 guidance on when to call this versus the many other list_* siblings, and no preconditions stated. Usage is only implied by the resource name, which is thin given 23 siblings competing for selection.

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