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

Annotations already indicate this is not read-only, not destructive, and idempotent. The description adds valuable context: the need for a WRITE-scoped API key, the return shape ({ form } with status 'published'), and the possible plan-limit failure on Free accounts. It does not contradict annotations.

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?

Every sentence contributes: purpose, requirement, argument list, return value, and caveat. The most important information is front-loaded, and there is no redundant or filler text.

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 single-parameter tool with annotations covering idempotence and no output schema, the description covers the return value, failure mode, and required permission. Nothing an agent needs to know to call it correctly is missing.

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?

The input schema already documents the sole parameter form_id with a type, description, and minLength. The description's 'Args: - form_id (string)' adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides. With 100% schema coverage, 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Publish a form so it's live at its public URL and can accept responses.' This clearly states what the tool does and distinguishes it from siblings like get_form, update_form, and unpublish_form by describing the exact outcome.

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 description implies when to use it: when a form should become live and accept responses. It also adds a precondition ('Requires a WRITE-scoped API key') and a caveat about plan limits on Free accounts. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it misses the full 5.

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