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

Beyond readOnlyHint=true, the description discloses a real behavioral trait: answers are sealed to the workspace key unless the page was created with readable_by_assistant=true, so callers know results can be partial. It stops short of describing ordering or how the per-entry flag appears.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that delivers the return contents and the key caveat without filler. Nothing redundant or padded.

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 one required parameter, no output schema, and only readOnly/openWorld annotations, the description covers what is returned and the main visibility caveat. Missing only the connection to how the request_page_id is discovered and any ordering/pagination behavior.

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% and the sole parameter request_page_id is undocumented in the schema. The description only hints at 'form request' pages and never says how to obtain the id or what format it takes, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 concrete resource and the fields returned: answers on a form request, with who/when for every entry and the answers themselves only when readable_by_assistant=true. That distinguishes it from siblings like get_request_progress or list_request_pages, though it never names them explicitly.

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 resource description (inspect form entries for a request page), but there is no explicit when-to-use versus get_request_progress/list_request_pages, and no prerequisite note such as 'obtain request_page_id from list_request_pages'.

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