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

Annotations already set readOnlyHint=true, and the description repeats 'Read-only', which is redundant. It adds the underlying GraphQL query name and parameters, but does not describe return format or pagination behavior, so it provides only modest additional transparency.

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?

The description is a single concise sentence that front-loads the core action and resource, then adds a helpful GraphQL reference. Every word earns its place.

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 simple list tool with read-only annotations and a fully documented schema, the description is adequate: it names the resource, filter capabilities, and underlying query. It does not explicitly describe the output list shape, but the title and 'List' verb imply it; this misses an opportunity for full completeness.

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?

The schema describes all four parameters with defaults and meanings, achieving 100% coverage. The description only restates 'keyword or category' and lists the GraphQL parameters, adding no new semantic meaning beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and identifies the resource as 'custom module form templates' with examples 'charting notes, intake forms'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling list tools like list_documents or list_form_answer_groups.

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 states the tool lists form templates and can filter 'by keyword or category', providing clear context for when to use it. However, it does not mention specific alternatives or exclusions, so it earns a 4 rather than 5.

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