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

The annotations already establish this as a safe, read-only, idempotent operation. The description adds behavioral detail beyond annotations by explaining it returns answers collected during agent reconnection and while the form is still in progress. It also clarifies the durable catch-up semantics of 'since'. No contradiction with 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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and every sentence adds value. The first sentence gives the core behavior, the second provides parameter guidance and an alternative endpoint. No 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?

The description covers the essential behavior and the meaning of 'since', but it does not explain timeout behavior, error cases, or what exactly is returned beyond 'an individual answer'. Given the tool's complexity and the lack of an output schema, it is reasonably complete but leaves some operational details unspecified.

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 schema description coverage is only 40%, so the description should compensate. It does add meaning to 'since' ('durable per-answer catch-up'), but it does not explain 'url', 'askId', or 'agentToken' beyond what their names imply. The description partially bridges the gap but not fully, making this a 3.

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 clearly states the core action ('Return as soon as an individual answer is saved') and adds specific context about reconnection and in-progress forms. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'watch_my_form_responses' by noting that this is for asks, not form responses, so it's not a 5.

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?

Provides some usage guidance: 'Use since for durable per-answer catch-up' and mentions the SSE stream endpoint as an alternative. But it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over get_responses or watch_my_form_responses, leaving the usage context partially implied rather than explicit.

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