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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds valuable context: responses contain untrusted visitor data, retention behavior is tied to website access including a billing grace period, and it explicitly states the tool does not send messages or modify data. These details go beyond the annotations and help the agent understand data handling and safety.

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 a single paragraph of four sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and mode behavior. It avoids redundant details and each sentence contributes useful information, though it could be slightly more structured with bullet points for readability, but overall it is concise.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (8 parameters, pagination, modes) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: modes, access, data trust, retention, and read-only nature. Pagination parameters are documented in the schema, and return values are covered by the output schema. It lacks explicit explanation of 'formKey' and pagination cursor usage, but those are inferable from 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the 'mode' parameter (summary vs. responses) and the 'fields' parameter (optional selection), but does not explain 'after', 'before', 'cursor', 'limit', 'formKey', or 'linkId'. With 8 parameters, only a couple are clarified, so the agent must infer the rest from schema constraints alone, leaving gaps.

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 clearly states the tool reads response counts or paginated visitor submissions for a Carryo website, specifying the verb 'reads' and the resource. It explicitly mentions the two modes (summary and responses) and notes that it does not send messages or modify data, distinguishing it from sibling tools like website.publish and website.edit.

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?

The description explains the default mode (summary) and the alternative mode (responses) with optional field selection, giving the agent guidance on how to get different kinds of data. It also mentions access requirements (website-owner or Team access) but does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives, though no direct sibling tool handles form responses, so the use case is clear.

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