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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely non-structured context: the Business-plan requirement and the underlying endpoint. Pagination behavior is implied only by the schema's cursor parameter, so it is not fully disclosed.

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?

Front-loads the resource and returned fields, then the prerequisite, then the alternative, then the endpoint. Very little waste, though the trailing raw endpoint is of marginal value to an agent.

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, and the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields (id, name, template, status, owner, dates). Combined with full schema coverage for inputs, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only pagination semantics remain implicit.

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 ten parameters are already documented in the schema, including the state enum and the last_synced_at cursor. The description adds no parameter-level detail, 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 a specific verb (list) and resource (forms), and immediately disambiguates the resource with parenthetical examples (inspections, daily reports, checklists). It also lists the returned fields, so an agent knows exactly what this tool yields versus a single-form fetch.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent to fieldwire_get_form_full for filled-in values, which is the key alternative in the sibling set. It also states the Business-plan prerequisite. It does not give when-not conditions beyond that, but the routing advice is clear.

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