List routing forms

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds meaningful behavioral context by disclosing the 50-per-page default and offset-based pagination. This goes beyond what the annotations alone provide.

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 no filler. The resource definition is front-loaded, and the pagination behavior is stated in one short clause. Every word earns its place.

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 listing tool with two optional, fully documented parameters, an output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description is complete. It explains what the tool returns, the resource semantics, and how pagination works.

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 the schema already documents limit and offset. The description reinforces the pagination behavior ('Returns 50 at a time; page with offset') but adds only minimal new meaning beyond what the parameter descriptions already state.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and a clearly identified resource ('routing forms and funnels'), and explains what these are: qualification forms that route visitors. This makes it easy to distinguish from sibling tools like get_routing_form or create_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?

The description clearly implies this tool is for retrieving a paginated list of routing forms, but it doesn't explicitly contrast it with get_routing_form for single-form lookup or other sibling list tools. The usage context is reasonable but relies on inference rather than explicit guidance.

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