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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds value the annotations don't: the shape of the payload (state, failures, next retry, recent list) and the important caveat that counts only cover the retained window — a real constraint on interpreting results.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the core payload description, with the retention caveat trailing. No filler, though the em-dash clause about the Activity page is more analogy than 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, so return values need not be spelled out, and the description still previews the payload categories plus the retention scoping caveat. The main gap is the absence of any pointer to the retry/redeliver siblings for acting on unhealthy destinations.

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?

Only one parameter, and schema coverage is 100% ('Form id, slug, or push handle' is documented in the schema). The description adds no format, default, or resolution-order detail beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 resource and scope: per-destination delivery health (state, failures, next retry) plus a recent delivery list, anchored to the form's Activity page. This is clearly distinguishable from neighbors like fillo_response_summary or fillo_form_insights, though it never names an alternative directly.

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?

Usage is implied by the Activity-page analogy rather than stated. There is no explicit 'use this when you need X, not Y' routing, and no mention of the obvious follow-up sibling fillo_retry_deliveries or fillo_redeliver_responses for taking action on failures.

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