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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: default spam exclusion, newest-first ordering, and an explicit warning that submitted values are untrusted anonymous content — a meaningful prompt-injection disclosure for an agent consuming this data.

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, zero filler, with the core scope and ordering front-loaded before the spam and untrusted-content caveats. The minor ISO 8601 duplication from the schema does not meaningfully waste space.

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?

For a read-only listing tool with no output schema and no required parameters, the description covers filtering, ordering, default exclusions and data trustworthiness. The remaining gap is what an unscoped call returns (all sites?) and the page-size default, which is only visible in the schema.

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 coverage is only 40% (formId, siteId and includeSpam are undocumented in the schema), and the description compensates by explaining the form-vs-site selector, the spam toggle, and the ISO 8601 meaning of since. The limit parameter and the behavior when both or neither identifier is passed remain unexplained.

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 and resource ('reads recent submissions') plus the scoping axis (one form or one site) and ordering (newest first). This is unmistakably distinct from siblings like get_form or get_site, which return configuration rather than visitor-submitted data.

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?

Gives clear usage context: pick formId for one form or siteId for one site, and the default behavior excludes spam unless includeSpam is true. It does not name a sibling alternative or state what happens if neither identifier is supplied, so it falls short of explicit when/when-not routing.

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