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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully reveals the 2,000-record cap and the CSV-text return format, but says nothing about read-only nature, permissions, truncation behavior beyond the cap, or pagination.

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?

A single sentence with zero filler; the record cap and format are front-loaded, and the optional filter is stated last. Nothing is repeated from the title.

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?

For a simple two-parameter export with no output schema, the description supplies the essentials: what is returned (CSV text), the cap, and the filter. Missing only edge-case behavior such as what happens past 2,000 records, which is a minor gap.

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 50%: formId is documented in the schema, while status only exposes an enum. The description confirms status is an optional filter, but adds no meaning beyond what the enum values (ok/spam/flagged) already convey, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 (export), resource (a form's submissions), and output format (CSV text), which implicitly separates it from list_submissions and get_submission. It stops short of naming the sibling alternatives explicitly, so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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 phrase 'optionally filtered by status' hints at a parameter, not at when to pick this tool over list_submissions, get_submission, or get_submission_stats. No prerequisites, no exclusions, no alternative routing is given.

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