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

The annotations say readOnlyHint=true, and the description explains exactly why: the tool returns instructions and 'opens nothing by itself', with the actual mutation delegated to cotlet_browser_* tools. That is valuable context beyond the annotation flags. It stops short of describing the shape of the returned walkthrough (length, whether it is per-screen or free text), which is the one behavioral detail an agent might still want.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place, but the opening clause 'Create form in the user's own Fillout account' briefly reads like a write action before the corrective sentence arrives — the no-op nature could be front-loaded. The trailing API paragraph is dense yet justified because it kills a plausible dead-end, though the parenthetical '(checked 17 Oct 2026)' is incidental detail.

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 parameters and no output schema, the description carries the full burden and does so: it says what it returns (step-by-step screens/buttons/fields), what it does not do (open or mutate anything), and which tools complete the job. Nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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?

There are zero parameters and the schema is empty with additionalProperties=false, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies; the description correctly implies the only input is the user's intent rather than any structured arguments.

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 a specific verb+resource and then immediately resolves the ambiguity in the name: the tool does not create anything, it 'Returns how to do it in Fillout step by step (screens, buttons, fields) and opens nothing by itself'. It also separates itself from the form-builder API and from sibling tools like fillout_add_question or fillout_publish_form by scoping the output to a procedural walkthrough.

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?

It gives an explicit use path: call this to get the procedure, then execute it with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's Fillout Cloud Browser. It also pre-empts the obvious wrong alternative by stating that Fillout's REST API 'cannot create or edit forms' and that no MCP server exists for the builder, so an agent has no reason to look elsewhere.

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