Get Online Forms

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

Annotations already establish readOnly/destructive=false, so the bar is lower, and the description still adds real context: the result includes a per-form open/closed status, and the tool cannot submit a form — that action remains in the Omnivox portal. It does not describe volume, ordering, or pagination, but for a small fixed list this is minor.

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 sentences with no waste; the resource and scope come first, and the read-only boundary follows as a second, distinct point. Every clause 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 zero-parameter list tool with no output schema, an agent needs to know what is listed, what fields come back (open status), and that it cannot act on a form — all three are covered. Nothing required for correct invocation is missing.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. No parameter-level gaps exist.

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 (the online forms the college publishes in Omnivox), and enumerates the form categories covered (workshop registrations, course withdrawal requests, surveys, sign-ups), which distinguishes it from document-oriented siblings like get-college-documents. It also names the per-item field returned (whether each is currently open).

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?

"Read-only: filling a form stays in the Omnivox web portal" clearly excludes the submission use case and redirects the agent elsewhere, which is the key boundary for this tool. It implies the correct use case (discovering available forms and their open/closed state) but does not explicitly name a sibling alternative or state exclusions relative to get-college-documents or get-service-link.

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