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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral context by warning that form_views and response_rate remain null until views are tracked (forward-only), which is not visible in the annotations or schema.

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 compact and front-loaded with the analytics summary. The Args block is somewhat redundant with the schema, but the return outline and forward-only note earn their place, and the overall structure is easy to scan.

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?

Since there is no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining return values, and it does so with a top-level shape and timeline item structure. It also documents an important nullability edge case, though it could have specified per-question entry fields and how response_format affects the returned payload.

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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented. The Args section in the description mostly repeats the schema (form_id string, response_format enum/default), adding little new semantic meaning beyond the schema.

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 specifies a precise verb and resource: retrieving aggregated analytics for a form. It enumerates concrete contents (KPIs, responses-over-time timeline, per-question stats), which clearly separates it from siblings like list_responses or get_form.

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 usage is implied by the description: choose this tool when you need aggregated analytics rather than raw responses or form configuration. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or state when not to use it, so guidance is left to inference.

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