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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuine behavioral rule not present in the schema: the department scoping falls back to the user's default department when department_id is omitted, which changes what results come back.

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, front-loaded clauses with no filler; the parenthetical gloss on 'reference data' earns its place for agents unfamiliar with GoCanvas terminology. It is terse to the point of being fragmentary, which slightly hurts readability.

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, listing the return fields is helpful, and the department default is covered. But for a list tool with a near-identical get sibling, the description leaves the agent without a clear selection rule and says nothing about filtering semantics of the assigned flag.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3; the description earns above baseline by explaining the default behavior of department_id, which the schema only labels as 'Department id.' It does not add anything about page or assigned, but those are already well documented.

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 defines the resource precisely as reference data / lookup tables used by forms and enumerates the returned fields (id, name, columns, version). However, the verb is only implied, and it does nothing to separate this from the sibling gocanvas_get_reference_data, which an agent could easily confuse with it.

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?

'Without department_id the user's default department is used' gives one useful calling rule, but there is no statement of when to use this list tool versus gocanvas_get_reference_data or the other list_* siblings. 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.