List Forms integration groups

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 adds meaningful domain semantics about how a hook behaves (runs active integrations on every matching new answer), but discloses nothing about the read operation itself such as pagination or ordering.

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 tight sentences that front-load what is returned and then explain the concept and related tool families. No filler, though the second sentence is more glossary than instruction.

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 list tool with one fully documented parameter, no output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description supplies enough conceptual framing to call it. Only the list-vs-get distinction is left implicit.

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 the single survey_id parameter already documents its 24-char hex format and source (``surveys_list``). The description adds no parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies with the schema doing the work.

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 defines what a hook/integration group is and that the tool returns them with their conditions and integrations, so the agent can tell it lists the integration-group resource. It does not explicitly contrast this with forms_hooks_get, so sibling differentiation is only partial.

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 implied: the tool surfaces a form's integration groups, and the closing sentence routes editing of conditions to ``conditions_hook_*`` and of integrations to ``subscriptions_*``. There is no explicit when-to-use-this-vs-forms_hooks_get statement or prerequisite note.

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