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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that: it discloses default ordering ('newest first') and that the records contain visitors' personal data belonging to the site owner, which signals sensitivity and expected access scoping.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the usage trigger and packs purpose, provenance, ordering and data sensitivity without filler. Every clause 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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be described, and the description covers purpose, trigger, ordering and data sensitivity. It omits any note on pagination or the 200-item cap, which is minor but the one remaining gap for a list tool.

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%, so both site_id and limit are fully documented in the schema; baseline is 3. The description adds only the ordering hint, not additional syntax or format detail for limit or site_id.

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 a specific resource (form messages / enquiries / contact requests sent by visitors) together with scope (the site's forms) and ordering (newest first). An agent can distinguish this from siblings like get_stats or get_site without opening the schema.

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 explicitly names the trigger condition — 'Use when the user asks for their form messages, enquiries or contact requests' — and maps several plausible user phrasings onto the tool. It stops short of naming alternatives or exclusions (e.g. when to use a different retrieval path), so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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