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

Annotations already declare it a safe read (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true), so the bar is lower. The description adds real value by disclosing the response payload scope ('id and name only') and that the source is a scoped practice endpoint, information the annotations do not convey.

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?

A single tight line with the resource scope front-loaded, the returned-field qualifier next, and the route last. No filler sentences.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by stating exactly what each item contains. Pagination and filtering are covered by the schema, so the only small gap is the lack of any hint about result volume or when the list is empty.

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 the four parameters (limit, before_id, after_id, team_for) are fully documented in the schema, including the enum and cursor semantics. The description adds no parameter-level detail, which matches the baseline for high coverage.

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 (List) and resource (form templates), and enumerates what counts (intake forms, questionnaires, consent forms), which distinguishes it from the sibling practice_better_list_form_requests. It also declares the returned fields ('id and name only') and the underlying route.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives, despite a genuinely confusable sibling (practice_better_list_form_requests) that an agent could easily pick by mistake. Usage is only implied by the resource name.

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