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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is already covered. The description adds the lifecycle shape (returns id/status/url/deliveryStatus/expiresAt/next) and the follow-on toolset for tracking and withdrawal, which is useful context beyond annotations. It doesn't cover rate limits or permissions, but for a create tool the annotation set is adequate and the description extends it meaningfully.

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-loads the definition and the usage condition, then routes to the alternative and prerequisites. It is a touch dense, packing the return shape and three follow-on tools into the final two sentences, but every sentence earns its 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 16-parameter create tool with no output schema, the description supplies the conceptual model (what a request is), the return envelope, the prerequisite (fields_list), the alternative (formShareLink_create) and the follow-on tools (request_get, request_cancel). What remains missing is contact-level detail on how it interacts with request_remind and callback lifecycle, but the schema covers per-field semantics and the description is sufficient to call it correctly.

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 already 100%, so the schema carries the per-parameter burden. The description nevertheless adds framework-level direction: 'prefill/context/readonly take field keys,' which ties three parameters together conceptually and points to fields_list as the prerequisite for resolving them. That is real added value over the schema, though the bulk of parameter semantics lives in 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?

States a precise verb + resource and defines what a request actually is ('one assignment of a published form to one named recipient, with its own link, prefilled answers, expiry and optional callback'). It also distinguishes the resource from the sibling formShareLink_create by stating the difference in intent (know whether they answered vs. a link anyone may fill).

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 gives the when: 'Use it when you need answers from a specific person and want to know whether they answered.' It names the alternative (formShareLink_create) and the condition that selects it, plus a prerequisite (fields_list(formId) first) and follow-on tools (request_get to track, request_cancel to withdraw).

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