List form recipients

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

Annotations already declare readonlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds valuable behavioral context by disclosing the return content: sent/opened/completed statuses, timestamps, and identification of unanswered recipients. No contradiction.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and every clause adds useful information. No fluff or redundancy.

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 simple read-only tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description covers the core behavior and highlights a key use case. It could briefly mention the form must have been sent, but that is already implied by 'was sent to' and the sibling send_routing_form tool.

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 is one required parameter, formId, with no schema description and 0% schema coverage. The description doesn't explicitly describe formId, but the parameter name and the phrase 'a routing form' make its meaning reasonably clear. Still, the description doesn't compensate fully for the schema's lack of parameter documentation.

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 clearly states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('who a routing form was sent to'), and adds distinguishing detail: statuses and timestamps. It is easily distinguishable from siblings like list_routing_forms and get_routing_form.

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 provides clear context for when the tool is relevant: after a routing form has been sent, to check recipient statuses and identify non-responders. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it.

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