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 genuinely new behavior: the response omits field values, includes assignment and status, and the underlying endpoint is GET /v2/formz. It stops short of describing pagination behavior or result-set size expectations.

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?

Four short sentences, each carrying distinct information: identity/contents, the field-value exclusion with a redirect, the filter set, and the endpoint. Themost decision-relevant facts (what it returns and what it does not) are front-loaded.

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 7 optional params, no output schema and a safe read-only annotation set, the description covers the essentials by enumerating returned fields and the excluded field values, which substitutes for a missing output schema. Pagination and sorting behavior are left entirely to the schema, a minor remaining gap rather than a blocking one.

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 every one of the 7 parameters is already documented, including enum values, defaults and the next_page paging hint. The description only restates three filters (name prefix, status, last-updated date) without adding format or interaction details, so the schema does the heavy lifting and 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List forms') and immediately disambiguates the domain term: forms are 'filled-in instances of templates', which separates it from the template-listing siblings. It also enumerates what each item contains (name, status, last update date, assignment), so the agent knows exactly what this call yields 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?

Explicitly routes the agent away from over-relying on this tool: 'Field values are NOT included: call goformz_get_form for those' gives a clear when-not plus a named alternative. It also names the supported filter axes. It does not address the nearest listing sibling (goformz_list_template_forms) or say when listing forms per template is preferable, so it falls short of a full 5.

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