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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/destructiveHint=false, and the description is consistent ('Read-only') while adding substantial context: pagination behavior, canPaginate semantics tied to nextCursor, the answers/display keying convention, and that translationLanguage never alters item.answers or item.display. This goes well beyond what the annotations provide.

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 purpose and read-only status, then the payload conventions, the translation caveat, and the return shape. The middle sentence enumerating choice/matrix/repeating-group shapes is dense but each clause carries distinct information an agent needs; minor tightening is possible but nothing is filler.

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 no output schema and 5 params at 40% coverage, the description carries the load well: it enumerates the full return object (formId, formName, items, nextCursor, hasMore, canPaginate) and the nested answers shape. The only real gap is includeDrafts, which is left completely unexplained.

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% (limit and cursor documented; formId, includeDrafts, translationLanguage bare). The description compensates meaningfully for translationLanguage (stored AI translation at item.translation.display, originals unchanged) and cursor/nextCursor round-tripping via canPaginate, but includeDrafts is never explained. Partial but strong compensation.

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 ('List submissions for a form') plus scope (paginated, read-only), and distinguishes itself from form_list and fields_list by naming both as prerequisites for other data. An agent can tell what this returns and what it does not without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: call form_list first for formId, call fields_list for key titles and option labels, and notes this is the same shape used by request_get and webhooks. There is no explicit when-not guidance or a stated alternative for listing submissions, but the ordering and companion-tool guidance is clear.

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