List forms

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

Annotations only say readOnly and openWorld; the description adds real behavioral context beyond them — newest-first ordering, the account-key vs agent-key visibility difference, the FORMHAUS_API_KEY requirement, and the two possible status values. These are exactly the traits an agent needs to predict the result set.

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?

Front-loaded with the routing instruction, then ordering, then the returned fields, then auth scope — a sensible priority order with no filler sentences. It is dense and slightly long, partly because the field list duplicates the output schema, which keeps it off a 5.

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 no-param list tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, alternatives, ordering, auth scope, and status semantics; the field enumeration is redundant with the output schema but harmless. Nothing needed to invoke 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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; the 100% schema coverage confirms nothing is required. The description correctly adds no parameter narrative because there is nothing to parameterize.

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 states a specific verb+resource (lists every form the key reaches) and explicitly separates itself from the sibling get_submissions, which it names. An agent can pick between list_forms and get_submissions without opening either schema.

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 explicit when-to-use conditions: call this to obtain a form_id for get_submissions, publish_form, update_form_settings or get_webhook; call get_submissions instead to read one form's answers. That is a complete routing rule with an exclusion.

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