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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It adds an important, non-obvious privacy behavior: actual collected values are not exposed to the LLM, only metadata. This is genuinely useful beyond the schema. It does not explicitly state read-only/no-side-effect behavior, but the 'get' name and summarizing language imply it.

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 sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence front-loads the core capability and the privacy constraint; the second gives direct user-query examples. The structure is scannable and 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?

For a summary tool with no output schema, the description usefully states what the response includes (count, field-type breakdown, recent submission metadata) and the critical privacy limitation. It omits exact response formatting and error behavior, but neither is essential for an agent to invoke this tool correctly.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does: 'flow' maps to the required flowId, 'breakdown by field type' maps to fieldType, and 'last N submissions' maps to limit. It does not spell out parameter names, defaults, or enum details, but an agent can infer the parameter roles from the prose.

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 identifies the action ('Summarize') and the resource ('data collected by a flow'), then enumerates the exact outputs: total count, breakdown by field type, and last N submissions. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_flow_stats or summarize_flow_purpose by focusing on a data-collection summary rather than flow stats or purpose.

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 concrete, human-language trigger examples ('how many emails has my flow collected?' / 'what data did this flow gather?'), making the intended use case explicit. It does not name sibling tools or state when not to use it, which keeps it from a 5, but the usage context is clear.

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