List Forms integration-group conditions

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

Annotations already declare it read-only, idempotent, and open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds domain behavior — that the group's integrations fire on a new answer only when these conditions match — which helps interpretation, but says nothing about auth requirements, scope, or result size.

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 with no filler, front-loading the resource and its shape. The noun-phrase opening is slightly awkward as an action statement but costs nothing in clarity.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully sketches the returned structure (``{operator, items}``) that an agent would otherwise have to guess, and the two required parameters are fully covered by the schema. Minor gaps remain (ordering, whether items may be empty) but nothing essential is missing for a simple read.

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%: hook_id (integer from hooks_list) and survey_id (24-char hex from surveys_list) are both documented in the schema, and the description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 names the resource precisely — an integration group's (hook's) conditions — and explains that they form a ``{operator, items}`` envelope. That distinguishes it from the sibling question/page/submit condition listers, though the description never uses an explicit verb like 'list' or 'retrieve' and relies on the name for that.

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 statement of when to call this versus forms_conditions_hook_get, forms_hooks_list, or the other condition listers. The second sentence explains what the conditions mean semantically, but that is domain context, not usage guidance or prerequisites.

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