List Company Form Templates From Project

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint: true, etc.) already indicate non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by disclosing pagination behavior ('Returns a paginated JSON array... includes pagination metadata'), the response format, and the required project_id. No contradictions with annotations.

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 four sentences long, front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by use cases, response format, pagination instructions, required parameter, and API context. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or fluff.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (6 parameters, 1 required, no output schema), the description covers the key aspects: response format (paginated JSON array), pagination control, required project_id, and API reference. It could explicitly mention the per_page maximum (100 from schema) but otherwise is complete.

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 coverage is 100%, with all 6 parameters having descriptions. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond 'Use page and per_page to control pagination' and 'Required parameters: project_id.' It does not detail filter parameters, but the schema already covers them. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the action ('Returns a collection of Company Form Templates for a specified Project'), the resource ('Company Form Templates'), and the scope ('for a specified Project'). It provides specific use cases: enumerate Forms, paginated overview, find IDs, filter by query parameters. This differentiates it from sibling tools like 'list_company_form_templates' (without project scope).

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use this to enumerate Forms when you need a paginated overview, to find IDs, or to filter by query parameters.' It provides clear context but does not mention when NOT to use it or direct alternatives. However, the use cases are well-defined.

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