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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the returned field set, and says nothing about paging behavior, auth requirements, or result size limits beyond what the schema's cursor param already states.

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 short, front-loaded sentences with no filler: resource and fields, then the id's purpose, then the route. Slightly telegraphic ('Form templates of a project: ...') but every clause carries information.

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?

Without an output schema the description carries the return-value burden, and it names the fields an agent will receive. Combined with the fully documented schema for filtering and pagination, an agent has enough to call it correctly, though the lack of contrast with fieldwire_list_forms leaves a small routing gap.

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%, so all five params (state, per_page, project_id, name_contains, last_synced_at) are already documented in the schema, including the Fieldwire-Filter header detail. The description adds no syntax or semantic detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 the resource (form templates), scopes it to a project, and lists the fields returned (id, name, version, publish state), plus the underlying endpoint. It is clearly distinguishable from fieldwire_list_forms (form instances) by the 'template' framing, though it never explicitly contrasts the two.

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 phrase 'Use the id to filter forms' hints at the downstream purpose of the returned ids, but there is no statement of when to use this tool versus siblings like fieldwire_list_forms or fieldwire_get_form, nor any exclusion guidance. Usage is only implied.

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