List Forms page show conditions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description earns credit by disclosing the return structure with no output schema present: the nested operator semantics (top-level joins groups, group-level joins clauses) and the meaning of the integer group id.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the resource, then the nesting semantics, then the id routing. The heavy backtick markup is slightly noisy but the content is dense and waste-free.

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 appropriately explains the return envelope and its nesting, and annotations cover the safety profile. An agent has enough to call it and interpret the result; only explicit usage routing is thin.

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% and both parameters (page_id, survey_id) are documented in the schema with source hints. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, 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?

The description names the resource precisely (a page's show conditions) and characterizes it as the {operator, items} envelope of condition groups. It lacks an explicit verb like 'list/retrieve', but the resource and return shape make the operation unambiguous, and it distinguishes itself from siblings by noting the group id feeds the get/update/delete tools.

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?

Usage is only implied: the note that a group's integer id is what get/update/delete take hints this is the read entry point that feeds those mutations, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or named alternative (e.g. forms_conditions_page_get).

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