form_search_form_definitions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond annotations – it repeats the GET endpoint that already appears in the title, and says nothing about paging behavior, result shape, or whether form definitions and versions are returned together.

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?

Short and front-loaded, but the first sentence and second sentence say essentially the same thing ('Search form and form versions by term' / 'Search for form definitions and form versions with the specified term'), and the raw endpoint line restates the annotation title. Redundancy rather than useful density.

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, four-optional-parameter search with no output schema, the annotations carry the safety profile and the schema carries the parameters, so the minimum is met. Still missing is what the results contain (definitions vs. versions, matching semantics, default paging) which an agent would want before calling.

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%, so page, size, sort and term are all documented in the schema; baseline is therefore 3. The description only echoes the 'term' parameter and adds no semantics for the pagination or sorting parameters beyond what the schema already says.

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?

States a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('form and form versions') with the search key ('term'), so the operation is unambiguous. However, it never distinguishes itself from close siblings such as form_search_by_source_and_type or form_search_form_status, leaving the agent to infer which search variant applies.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative tool is named. The only implied signal is 'by term', which vaguely contrasts with source/type- or status-based searches but is never stated as a selection criterion.

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