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

Annotations already mark this readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: results are paged at a fixed 100 per page and are limited to what the connected user can see. It stops short of describing the paging envelope (next_page) explicitly, which keeps it from a 5.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the resource and scope, then the sibling alternative. Every clause carries information: scope, returned fields, paging, and the routing hint.

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 description usefully lists the fields returned, and it covers paging behavior. It could go slightly further on the page-token reuse and the assigned-flag semantics, but for a simple two-parameter list tool this is close to complete.

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 both parameters (page, assigned) are already documented in structured form. 'Paged, 100 per page' mostly repeats the schema's own text and the description says nothing extra about the `assigned` flag, so 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?

The description names a specific resource ('Forms (mobile form definitions)') with an explicit scope ('the connected user can see') and enumerates the returned fields (id, name, status, version, department). The final clause explicitly separates it from the sibling gocanvas_get_form, so an agent can pick the right tool without opening a schema.

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?

It states the use case (finding forms the user can see) and routes the agent to the sibling tool when detail is needed: 'Use gocanvas_get_form for a form's fields (entries).' That is an explicit alternative plus the condition that selects it.

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