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

Goes well beyond annotations: discloses that a call is billed as one verify with the first 5 each month free, and precisely scopes dry_run (nothing stored, charged or sent, no AI used) plus what a rehearsal cannot check. The cost/credit and no-AI disclosure are things the annotations do not carry.

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?

Front-loaded with the checks and the outcome states, then inputs, then billing and dry-run caveats — each sentence earns its place. The dry_run explanation is somewhat longer than needed but carries non-obvious information.

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?

An output schema exists, yet the description still names the three possible verdicts, which is helpful context. Remaining gaps are the URL/base64 exclusivity, PDF optionality, and invalid-input behavior, but for a 4-param validation tool this is largely complete.

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 carries the load and does add meaning: pdf_url is a public https link, pdf_base64 is the alternative, and dry_run is a no-side-effect rehearsal. It stops short of clarifying whether the PDF is required (only form_id is in required) or what happens if both url and base64 are supplied.

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 ('Check a filled form') and enumerates exactly what is validated (required fields, allowed options, consistent choices, text fitting, empty signature boxes) plus the tri-state outcome. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like read_form or inspect_pdf, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 concrete input guidance (form_id plus PDF via pdf_url or pdf_base64) and an explicit conditional path for dry_run=true, but never says when to use this instead of read_form, inspect_pdf, or prepare_form. Usage is implied by the check list rather than by comparison to alternatives.

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