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

The annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds useful behavioral context by specifying the scope ('current team', 'last N days') and the precise breadth of what is returned, which goes beyond the raw schema 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 front-loaded with the verb, resource, time scope, and team scope, then lists the returned statistical categories. It is a long single sentence, but each part is useful and not redundant.

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 tool returns a rich set of analytics, and the description covers the operation, scope, time window, and the actual data product, while the output schema handles formal return details. Nothing important needed to call or interpret the tool correctly appears to be 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?

Parameter schema coverage is 100%, with both formId and days documented. The description adds little semantic detail beyond calling days 'last N days', which aligns with the schema, 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?

The description opens with a concrete, non-generic operation: 'Read submission statistics for a form in the current team over the last N days', then enumerates the specific report components it returns. It clearly distinguishes this tool from sibling operations like get_form_funnel or list_records, which serve different purposes.

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 a clear intended use: 'Use this to gauge how a quiz is performing and to suggest improvements.' However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like get_form_funnel or get_form, so it lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

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