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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, it discloses real behavioral traits: only accepted responses are counted, both responses:read and forms:read scopes are required, and the payload (verbatim respondent quotes) is untrusted. The auth requirement and security warning are exactly the kind of context annotations cannot 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-loads the highest-value information (what numbers come back), then filter mechanics, then auth/security caveats. Dense but every clause carries distinct information with no 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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, yet the description still orients the agent well. Combined with annotations for the safety profile and explicit auth/scope and untrusted-payload notes, an agent has everything needed to invoke 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by grouping by/op/eq as an 'answer segment' and pointing to the fillo_list_responses filter grammar, which the schema does not convey (it only documents each param in isolation). This is useful added context over 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?

The description names a specific resource (a form's responses) and enumerates the exact analytical outputs: totals, median completion time, week-over-week change, daily timeline, sources, drop-off funnel, and per-question distributions with CSAT/NPS. This lets an agent distinguish it from raw-list siblings like fillo_list_responses without opening either 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?

It connects the filter grammar to fillo_list_responses and notes the 'Accepted responses only' scope, implying when this analytics tool applies. However, it never explicitly states when to choose this over fillo_response_summary or fillo_list_responses, leaving the selection criteria to inference.

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