list_form_translations

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

Annotations already mark this read-only and non-destructive; the description adds what specific data is returned (language, isActive, public share link, timestamps) and what is excluded. No side effects or surprising behavior are omitted.

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 compact sentences; the action and return value are front-loaded, and the primary-language caveat is placed as a short final note. Every sentence 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 one-parameter read-only list tool with an output schema and full annotations, the description covers scope, return contents, and the key caveat. No additional information is needed to call it correctly.

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 already documents formId as 'The source form UUID' with 100% coverage. The description only restates that these are translations of a form, adding no extra format or constraint semantics.

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 verb 'List', resource 'existing language versions (translations) of a form', and explicitly distinguishes itself from get_form by noting the primary language is not included. This differentiates it from sibling translation CRUD tools without opening schemas.

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?

Clearly sets the boundary that the primary language lives on get_form.language, so an agent knows not to expect it here. It does not, however, mention when to prefer get_form_translation for a single translation, so routing guidance is partial.

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