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

The description discloses key behavioral traits: unrecognized keys are silently dropped rather than raising an error, and required fields must be provided. These go beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true) and are critical for correct usage. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 four sentences, each carrying distinct information: purpose, usage context, key-matching caveat, and field requirements. It is well-structured and avoids redundancy or filler.

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 description covers purpose, prerequisite, parameter semantics, and error behavior, which is comprehensive for a tool with only two parameters. The only omitted aspect is the exact return value/output format, which is less critical for invocation given no output schema, but still 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?

The input schema only describes parameters as 'The Data Template ID' and 'Submission data as a key-value object'. The description enriches the 'data' parameter significantly by explaining key matching to field IDs, the silent-drop behavior, and required vs optional handling. This is essential semantic information above the schema.

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 first sentence clearly states the tool's action ('Creates a new submission') and resource ('specific Data Template (Form)'), distinguishing it from sibling retrieval/update tools. The verb 'creates' inherently differentiates it from update/list/search siblings. No ambiguity.

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 explicitly states the prerequisite workflow: obtain the schema first via the named sibling tool, then collect user input. This provides clear 'when to use' guidance without needing to enumerate exclusion cases. It also sets expectations for data preparation.

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