List forms / campaigns

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuine behavioral fact not in annotations — results are ordered newest first — plus pagination, which is largely restated by the continuationToken/pageIndex schema fields. No return shape, page-size defaults, or auth/scope notes beyond the schema.

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, no filler, with the resource identity front-loaded and the ordering/pagination note trailing. Every clause carries information.

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, zero-required-parameter list tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers what the resource is and how results are ordered. It could say more about default org resolution or what a form record contains, but nothing essential for a correct call 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all six parameters (states, formTypes, orgSlug, pageSize, pageIndex, continuationToken) are already documented, including enum values and the continuationToken preference guidance. The description only loosely echoes the filterable dimensions via its type list, so the 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?

States a specific verb ('List') and resource ('organization forms (campaigns)') and enumerates the concrete form categories, which maps directly to the formTypes enum. It is clearly distinct from singleton siblings like helloasso_get_form or the type-metadata sibling helloasso_list_form_types, though it never names those alternatives explicitly.

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 implies the browsing/listing use case ('Newest first, paginated'), but gives no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative (e.g. use helloasso_get_form when you already have a form slug). Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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