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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description's 'Get the list' is consistent. The description adds the semantic nuance that results are 'people', implying contact profiles, but does not disclose behaviors like pagination limits or cross-form aggregation beyond what the schema already provides.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the description of the tool's action, followed by example queries. No waste, every word adds value.

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 low complexity (2 optional params, no output schema), a clear read operation, and annotations covering safety, the description sufficiently explains what the tool does and when to use it. Schema fills parameter details, so no gaps remain.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the description doesn't carry extra param semantics. The phrase 'specific form' aligns with form_id, but adds no new meaning beyond the schema. 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 clearly states the tool retrieves list of people who filled a form (form leads/submissions), using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like list_forms by focusing on submissions rather than form definitions.

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?

It explicitly provides natural language triggers ('who filled my form', 'show form leads', 'form submissions') that signal when to use the tool. This is direct usage guidance, even though it doesn't name alternatives, the tool is unique enough that exclusions aren't necessary.

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