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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/non-destructive, so the description rightly spends its words elsewhere: the 'Free' cost signal and the '5 latest text answers' truncation are behaviors an agent would not otherwise know. It stops short of saying whether results are cached or how large forms affect response size.

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?

One dense sentence that front-loads the overview purpose and then enumerates outputs; every clause corresponds to a distinct portion of the result. It is long but not padded.

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 no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing return values and does so thoroughly, including the NPS formula ('percent promoters minus percent detractors') and the truncation of text answers. An agent knows what it will get back.

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 'form' and 'since' are already documented, including ISO/date formats. The description restates 'since, only responses from then on' without adding syntax or edge-case meaning, 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+resource ('A form's results at a glance') and enumerates exactly what the summary contains: response count, per-question choice counts/percentages, rating averages, NPS, yes/no shares, numeric min/max/average, and 5 latest text answers. This is far more concrete than the sibling forms_list_responses or forms_export_responses.

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?

Usage is implied by the return contents (aggregate overview vs. raw rows), but the description never names the alternatives (forms_list_responses, forms_export_responses, forms_get_response) or says when to prefer one. The 'Free' note hints at a cost tradeoff but is not spelled out as guidance.

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