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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds useful behavioral color by noting that submit actions carry conditional logic and can be one of three kinds, but it says nothing about pagination, auth requirements, or whether actions are returned in evaluation order.

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?

One tightly written sentence that front-loads the core description of the return content, followed by a compact endpoint reference. Nothing is wasted, though the endpoint path is somewhat redundant with the tool's structure.

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 simple read-only list tool with a fully documented single parameter and annotations covering safety, the description is essentially complete: it explains what the returned actions represent and their varieties. Without an output schema it could optionally have described the response fields, but that is a minor 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?

Only one parameter (form_id) and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents the input with constraints (integer, >0). The description adds no syntax or semantic detail beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline for a single well-documented param.

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?

Specific verb ('List') plus resource ('submit actions' / what happens after submission) and an enumeration of the possible outcomes (default processing, custom message, redirect URL). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like formstack_list_confirmation_emails and formstack_list_notification_emails, though it never names them explicitly.

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 the resource and the included GET path, so an agent can infer this is the read-only way to inspect post-submit configuration. However, there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternatives are named.

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