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

Annotations already mark this as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, and the description adds genuinely useful behavior: default sort order, text-only output, placeholder redaction for non-text answers, and the dashboard fallback. It doesn't go into output pagination, but the output schema covers return shape.

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 compact and puts the core purpose first, then adds examples and exclusions. The example questions add some length but help an agent map natural-language intents to the tool, so they mostly earn their place.

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 a fully described schema, rich annotations, and an output schema, this description covers what the tool returns, what it excludes, how it sorts, and how it relates to the closest sibling. Nothing needed for correct invocation 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema carries the parameter documentation. The description reinforces time filtering and sort order, but the 'newest first unless sort: oldest' detail is already present in the sort parameter's description, so it adds little parameter-level meaning beyond the schema.

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 leads with a specific verb and resource ('List a Clipform form's individual responses (submissions)') and immediately distinguishes itself from clipform_get_results by clarifying it returns individual rows, not aggregates. This makes its role clear even among many list_* 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 names clipform_get_results as the aggregate companion, provides representative user questions that signal when to invoke this tool, and states that non-text data is redacted to placeholders with instruction to point users to the dashboard. That is an explicit when/when-not/alternative statement.

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