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

Goes well beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false) by disclosing that answers are validated and refused with a reason and nothing is sent, that a card or sheet row is created with a 'Preview: ' title prefix, and that on a published form the run is a counted response (takes the next number, counts toward the limit, allowed even while closed, no email). This is exactly the side-effect detail an agent needs.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and purpose, and every clause carries real information (validation behavior, row creation, counting rules, cleanup). The single dense paragraph with stacked em-dash asides is slightly harder to scan than it could be, but there is little genuine waste.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and the description still covers the full lifecycle: validation, side effects, counting consequences on published vs unpublished forms, and post-use cleanup. Nothing an agent needs to invoke and recover from this tool 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the schema already documents documentId, tab, and the answers map in detail. The description adds no parameter-level syntax or format information beyond the schema's own answer-type documentation, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 verb and resource ('Fill in a form as a respondent would') plus the reason ('to check it end to end, as the builder's Preview does'), which clearly separates it from read_form, share_form, and change_form among the siblings. An agent can tell what this does 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?

Gives clear context for when to use it (end-to-end verification as a builder would in Preview) and follows with the cleanup step ('Delete a preview card with change_items when done'). It does not name an explicit alternative to avoid or state when-not-to-use, but the qualifying conditions around published vs unpublished forms give strong operative context.

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