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 real value beyond that: the required CREATOR role on the key and the underlying GET /api/v1/form endpoint, which tells the agent this is a scoped remote read. It does not discuss paging behavior, but the schema does.

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 resource and filters, with the auth prerequisite second. The GET path is mildly redundant but compact and useful to API-aware agents; nothing is wasted or buried.

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 read-only filtered list with a fully documented 5-parameter schema and no output schema, the description covers purpose, filters, auth, and endpoint. The only gap is return shape and result ordering/pagination totals, which are partially inferable from the schema.

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 every parameter including the ambiguous 0-vs-1 page numbering is already documented in the schema. The description only restates the filter names (type, status, version) without adding format, matching semantics, or default ordering. 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?

States a specific verb ('List') and resource ('donation and event forms') plus the filter dimensions, which clearly separates it from the sibling funraise_list_form_custom_questions. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, but the resource noun is unambiguous.

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 implies when to use it (browsing forms with optional type/status/version filters) and states the CREATOR role prerequisite, but it never says when not to use it or points to an alternative tool for a related need. Guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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