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

Annotations already confirm read-only, non-destructive behavior, but the description adds substantial context: default filtering excludes drafts, draft inclusion is plan-gated, completed status must be inferred via isCompleted, and translationLanguage attaches a stored translation without altering original answers/display. No behavioral contradictions.

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 dense but front-loaded with purpose and dependency, then delivers return-shape and parameter nuances without wasted sentences. Length is justified by the lack of an output schema and low schema description coverage.

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, the description carries the burden of explaining return values and does so thoroughly: top-level fields, item shape (answers, display, aiValidations), translation placement, pagination flags, and draft/completed semantics. Together with annotations, it provides enough context for correct invocation and interpretation.

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%, so the description must compensate and does so for includeDrafts, translationLanguage, and the formId prerequisite. limit and cursor semantics are already covered by the schema, so the remaining gap is minor.

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+resource and scope: list submissions for a form, paginated, read-only. It also names dependencies (form_list for formId first) and distinguishes related tools (fields_list for label metadata), so an agent can select it confidently.

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 covers prerequisites ('Call form_list for formId first'), follow-up metadata retrieval ('call fields_list'), default behavior (only completed submissions), and the condition for including drafts (includeDrafts: true, Pro/Business only). It also warns never to count a draft as completed.

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