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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-derivable behavior: the auth-free access mode and the per-call cost ("호출마다 토큰 1소진"), which matters for budgeting repeated list calls. The idempotency discussion is largely boilerplate for a read-only list, which keeps it from a 5.

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 purpose sentence is buried in second position behind an auth note, and the majority of the text is a long idempotency-key tutorial that is irrelevant to an anonymous read-only list operation. The token-cost warning is appended at the very end, where it is easy to miss.

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?

Auth mode, token cost, and key handling are all addressed, and parameters are fully covered by the schema with no output schema to explain. What is missing is anything about result volume, paging behavior, or how results relate to forms__detail, which an agent needs before calling.

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% across all six parameters, so the schema already documents search fields and paging. The description adds nothing about srch_txt, the code filters, or default paging beyond what the schema states; it only elaborates request_idempotency_key, which the schema already flags as optional. 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?

The second sentence, "List available forms," states a clear verb and resource, and the Korean title mirrors it. However, it does not distinguish this tool from close siblings like forms__detail, forms__attachments, or forms__list_init, so an agent must infer which of the four to pick.

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?

"No credential or login required" is a useful precondition that tells the agent this can be called anonymously, and the idempotency paragraph implicitly scopes the key to authenticated calls. But there is no guidance on when to use this versus list_init or detail, and no instruction about paging through results.

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