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

The readOnlyHint annotation already declares the safety profile, and the description's 'Read-only' merely repeats it. It does add the underlying GraphQL query name and argument list, which is mild context for debugging, but says nothing about result caps, default page size behavior, or ordering beyond what the schema already carries.

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 plus a compact GraphQL reference, with the core purpose front-loaded before the filter and read-only notes. The GraphQL signature sentence is marginally useful and does not bloat the definition much.

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, filter-only list tool with 100% schema coverage, the description covers purpose, filters, and read-only status adequately. With no output schema present, it could have described the shape of returned form templates, which is the only real 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all four parameters (keywords, category, offset, page_size) are already documented in the schema. The description only restates keywords and category and omits the two pagination parameters, adding no meaningful semantics beyond the schema baseline.

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 gives a specific verb ('List') and resource ('custom module form templates'), and parenthetically clarifies the domain with 'charting notes, intake forms', which helps an agent map the ambiguous word 'forms'. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the nearby sibling healthie_list_form_answer_groups, so it falls short of a 5.

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 phrase 'optionally by keyword or category' implies when the filters are useful, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusion criteria, and no pointer to an alternative tool (e.g. list_form_answer_groups) when the agent wants submitted responses rather than templates.

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