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

Annotations already declare the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail: it returns existing answers immediately, waits for the next save, and works even while the form is in progress. This goes beyond the annotation hints and clarifies the true watch semantics.

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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the primary behavior ('Return any existing individual answers immediately') and packs the waiting behavior and in-progress nuance without fluff. Every phrase 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?

Given the tool has 3 parameters, no output schema, and strong annotations, the description sufficiently outlines the core behavior and fits with the schema's timeoutMs and since parameters. It doesn't cover timeout edge cases or response format, but that is not critical given the structured schema and safety annotations.

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 67% with only askId lacking a description. The description does not explicitly explain askId, but the overall behavior implies it refers to the form/ask identifier. It adds no direct parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score 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 clearly states what the tool does: returns existing individual answers immediately or waits for the next answer from the respondent, even on an in-progress form. This distinguishes it from simple retrieval tools like get_my_form_responses or get_responses by emphasizing the watch/wait behavior.

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 gives clear context for when to use it (when you want existing answers immediately or need to wait for the next one) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools. The sibling names imply alternatives, but the description itself lacks an explicit contrast.

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