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

Annotations already mark it read-only and non-destructive, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context: newest-first ordering, empty-list normality, PII sensitivity, the forms:read scope requirement, and the exact 403 INSUFFICIENT_SCOPE remediation flow. No contradiction with annotations.

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 front-loaded with the primary trigger and every sentence earns its place: use case, return behavior, empty-result expectation, and auth/error handling. It is dense but not bloated, and all content is directly actionable.

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?

Given the output schema exists and annotations cover the safety profile, the description is complete for successful invocation: it covers when to call, what to expect, the normal empty case, required scope, and how to handle the likely auth failure. An agent has everything needed to use the tool 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?

The input schema covers all 4 parameters with 100% description coverage, so the schema carries the documentation burden. The description adds general behavioral details like ordering and scope, but it does not add meaning to limit or since beyond what the schema already provides.

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 clearly states it returns form submissions from KleapForm-built forms and frames it around the user's intent ('who filled out their contact form', 'see/export leads'). It is specific about the resource and scope, though it does not name or distinguish itself from a sibling tool such as get_analytics.

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?

The description opens with explicit use-case triggers ('when the user asks who filled out their contact form, or wants to see/export leads') and adds context about empty results for new sites. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or point to an alternative, so it falls just short of full guidance.

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