List a Forms survey's failed integration runs

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 two useful facts beyond that: the return is only ids (not full objects) and the entries are 'still shown', implying an unresolved subset. It stops short of explaining what 'still shown' means, whether results are paginated, or what happens when there are none.

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 zero filler; the returned-content constraint is front-loaded and the follow-up action is second. Nothing could be cut without losing 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 single-parameter read-only list with no output schema, the description covers what is returned (ids) and how to expand them (notifications_get), which is the key information an agent needs. Minor gaps remain around pagination and empty-result behavior, but annotations carry the safety context.

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% and there is only one parameter (survey_id, documented as a 24-char hex form id), so the schema fully carries parameter meaning. The description adds nothing about the parameter, which is the correct baseline when the schema does 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 names the specific resource and a meaningful subset: the ids of a form's failed integration runs 'that are still shown'. That distinguishes it from the broad forms_notifications_list sibling, though it never names that sibling explicitly, so the differentiation is inferential rather than stated.

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?

It gives an explicit next-step route ('Read each with notifications_get'), which is genuinely useful workflow guidance. However, it never says when to choose this tool over forms_notifications_list or forms_notifications_status_get, so tool selection is left to inference.

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