List Routing Forms

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint, openWorldHint), so the bar is lower. The description still adds genuinely useful context beyond them: the required OAuth scope (routing_forms:read) and the fact that pagination is bounded opaque page_token retrieval, which signals quota-consuming, non-snapshot behavior.

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?

Three short, front-loaded sentences with the resource name first and no redundancy. "Reads Calendly data" is mild filler, but nothing is bloated or buried.

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 read-only list tool with full schema coverage and clear annotations, the description is adequate but thin. With no output schema present, it could have said something about what records are returned or the pagination shape; as written it leaves return-value expectations entirely to inference.

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%, and each parameter (sort, count, account, all_pages, max_items, page_token, organization) is documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 specific verb and resource ("List Routing Forms") that an agent can immediately act on. It is clearly distinct from the sibling get_routing_form (list vs. single-fetch), but it never explicitly draws that contrast or names the sibling, so it falls short of the top score.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_routing_form or list_routing_form_submissions. The only contextual hint is the required scope, which tells the agent about permissions but not usage conditions.

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