list_forms_collecting_personal_data

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes that this is a safe read operation, so the description's burden is to add context beyond that. It adds essentially nothing: it does not define what counts as 'personal data', explain the 'inactive_personal_data_suspected' heuristic, or mention result volume/pagination, and instead largely restates the tool name.

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?

A single short sentence, front-loaded with the verb and scope, with no wasted words. It is efficient, though its brevity reflects under-specification rather than tight editing.

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?

With an output schema present and 100% parameter coverage, the definition is minimally complete for calling the tool. However, it never defines the domain concept ('personal data') that drives the whole listing, nor distinguishes the result set from sibling listing tools, leaving a meaningful gap.

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 100%, so both boolean filters are already fully documented in the schema, including the None-means-all semantics. The description's 'optional filters' is consistent but adds no syntax or meaning beyond the schema, matching the baseline 3.

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 clear verb+resource ('List forms') and narrows it to a specific subset ('that collect personal data'), which separates it from the generic list_my_forms sibling. It stops short of explicitly naming the alternative tool, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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?

Beyond the phrase 'with optional filters' there is no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no pointer to the sibling tools (list_my_forms, lookup_form_by_title) that also enumerate forms. An agent must infer the selection criteria entirely.

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