therapyportal_list_forms

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds genuinely new behavioral context by warning that the returned text is third-party and untrusted and must not be followed as instructions. That is high-value context beyond the structured fields, though it says nothing about result size, pagination, or freshness.

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 sentences, front-loaded with what is listed and what it reports, followed by the one safety-critical caveat. No filler or restated title.

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 listing tool with zero required params, full schema coverage, and complete annotations, the description covers purpose, examples, and the untrusted-content caveat. It stops short of indicating roughly what a record contains or how many items to expect, but nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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 the single 'view' enum carries a detailed explanation of compact/full/raw, so the description adds nothing about it. Baseline 3 applies since the schema fully 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?

Uses a specific verb+resource ('List the practice's always-available forms and documents'), plus concrete examples of what counts as standing paperwork (disclosure statement, upload) and what metadata is reported (signature/upload requirement). It implicitly separates itself from therapyportal_list_documents by emphasizing always-available/standing items, but never names the sibling, so the differentiation is inferential rather than explicit.

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?

The phrase 'always-available forms and documents' and the 'to sign / to upload' examples give a usable sense of when this tool applies, but there is no explicit when-not guidance and no named alternative (e.g., list_documents for client-specific uploads) telling the agent which listing tool to pick.

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