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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is already covered. The description adds genuine context: the default filter is active-only, archived is opt-in, and the returned payload shape (id, name, url_slug, is_archived) is enumerated — useful since no output schema exists. No permissions or pagination behavior is discussed, but for a read-only list this is solid.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence carrying the resource, returned fields, default behavior, and the underlying API endpoint. Nothing is wasted or padded.

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 field enumeration is important and present, and the active/archived default is stated. For a one-parameter read-only list tool this is nearly complete; only pagination/ordering behavior is unaddressed.

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 100% and the single parameter is fully documented, so baseline is 3. The description restates the archived semantics and adds the default-active behavior, which the schema only implies, but contributes no new syntax or edge-case detail.

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 and resource ('List the church's online forms') and even enumerates the returned fields, so the resource is unambiguous. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from near-neighbors like breeze_list_form_entries or breeze_list_form_fields, but 'forms' vs 'entries'/'fields' is largely self-evident from the names.

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 description discloses the default scope ('active ones by default, or archived ones'), which tells the agent how to get each subset via the single parameter. However, it gives no when-to-use guidance relative to other tools (e.g., when to reach for entries or fields instead), leaving routing to inference.

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