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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description discloses critical semantics: the values are the starting point every signer sees, not anyone's answers, because a public link has no single set of answers. This prevents a common misinterpretation and clarifies what the tool does not return.

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 front-loaded with the core definition, then adds essential differentiators and routing. Each sentence earns its place; the length is justified by the conceptual pitfalls it prevents.

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 a single fully-documented parameter and no output schema, the description provides everything needed: what the tool returns, what it does not return, how it differs from siblings, and how to get actual signer-entered values. No critical calling context 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?

The only parameter, linkId, is already fully described in the schema as the unique identifier of the public link, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds contextual meaning about public links but no additional parameter-level details, so the baseline of 3 is 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('PDF form fields (AcroForm) in a public link's document'), and clearly distinguishes itself from signature slots by pointing to get_link's signeeDetails. This makes the tool's purpose unmistakable even among many sibling tools.

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 explicitly contrasts with get_link's signeeDetails and gives a concrete alternative workflow for reading individual signer answers: take a documentId from list_link_documents and call get_document_field_values. It also states there is no tool for setting field values on a link, preventing futile searches.

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