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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: only completed forms have responses, and answers can change if the questionnaire is later edited. It also notes the Cotlet API key/access requirement, which helps with auth setup.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose and return shape, followed by useful caveats about completion state and mutability. Slightly verbose (the 'same as the Responses view' clause is somewhat redundant) but every sentence mostly 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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing the return value and does so clearly (Q&A pairs, in form order). Combined with the auth note and the completed-forms caveat, an agent has enough to call and interpret the 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 100%, so both form_id and include_empty are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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+resource: returns the answers a client gave on a completed form or lead capture form, as Q&A pairs. It distinguishes its scope by noting only completed forms have responses, but does not explicitly route against the nearest siblings like list_forms or list_form_templates.

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?

Usage is implied by the requirement that the form be completed, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or named alternative. An agent must infer that it needs a form_id already obtained from list_forms or apply_form_template.

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