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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It does add one genuinely useful behavioral fact — universal plan availability — which likely matters given many siblings are plan-gated. However, it never states that this is a safe read-only operation, its auth requirements, or whether counts are sampled/realtime, leaving a mutation-vs-read ambiguity an agent shouldn't have to resolve.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the payload (the return contents) front-loaded and the availability caveat trailing. Nothing is padded and every clause carries information.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must convey return contents — and it does, naming the three count categories plus quota usage. For a one-parameter stats tool that is nearly sufficient; only the response shape/refresh behavior is left unstated, 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 description coverage is 100% and the single formId parameter is fully documented with an example, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description's phrase "for a form" reinforces the scoping but adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is correct.

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 states exactly what the tool returns: delivered/spam-held/flagged counts for a form plus workspace quota usage. That is a specific resource and metric set, clearly distinct from get_submission (single item) and list_submissions (enumeration). It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings, so it is clear but not fully self-differentiating.

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?

"Works on every plan" is an availability caveat, not usage guidance. There is no statement of when to reach for this versus list_submissions or get_submission, and no mention of prerequisites. An agent must infer the use case from the name alone.

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