analytics_list_evaluation_forms

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation via 'List' but fails to mention pagination, required permissions, or whether it returns form templates versus evaluation instances. The description adds minimal extra context beyond the verb.

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?

The description is extremely concise and front-loaded with the core action, but it is under-specified. It is not a tautology, but it sacrifices necessary contextual information for brevity, making it minimally acceptable but not well-structured for a tool with a schema and siblings.

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?

The tool comes with an output schema and two parameters, yet the description does not explain what an 'evaluation form' is, how this relates to 'analytics_list_contact_evaluations', or what 'instance_id' refers to. The description is incomplete for a tool in a large API family, especially given the lack of annotations.

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 0%, and the description says nothing about the parameters. The agent receives no explanation of the required 'instance_id' or the optional 'max_results' with its default of 25, leaving the parameters entirely undocumented in both the schema and description.

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 'List evaluation forms' uses a specific verb ('List') and a clear resource ('evaluation forms'), making the basic operation evident. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'analytics_list_contact_evaluations', which could be confused with this one, so it lacks full distinguishing clarity.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'analytics_list_contact_evaluations'. It provides no context for the intended use case, no prerequisites, and no exclusions, leaving the agent to guess from the tool name alone.

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