List Forms integration runs

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond them: pagination ('across pages') and the default cap behavior ('Capped at the configured item cap unless limit is given'), which an agent needs to reason about result size and paging.

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 with zero filler, and the critical survey_id requirement is front-loaded. The opening is a noun phrase rather than a complete sentence, a minor stylistic wart, but it does not cost the reader much.

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 13-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description supplies the two things the agent most needs to call it correctly (the mandatory survey_id and the cap/paging behavior), and the annotations cover the safety profile. Remaining gaps are minor.

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%, so the schema already documents all 13 parameters, including the 404 consequence of omitting survey_id and the cap semantics of limit. The description largely restates this; it adds little parameter meaning not already present in the structured fields, 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 opening sentence states the resource (runs of a form's integrations) and gives the useful granularity detail 'one per answer and integration,' which helps an agent distinguish this from sibling list tools like forms_notifications_errors_list. It lacks an explicit verb, relying on the title to supply 'List,' but the scope is unambiguous.

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 a hard usage requirement ('Give survey_id: without it the API answers 404') and routes the agent to the alternative for single-item detail via 'Read one run's context, response and error with notifications_get.' It does not position itself against other related siblings (errors list, cancel, restart), so it stops short of full when/when-not coverage.

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