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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false). The description adds value beyond them by disclosing the exact payload contents — views, starts, submissions, completion rate, plus a per-day breakdown — which matters because no output schema exists. It still omits whether missing days are zero-filled or whether stats lag behind submissions, but the core behavioral surface is covered.

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?

Two front-loaded sentences with the metrics listed first and the optional filter last; nothing is buried. The second sentence largely echoes the schema's own description of the days parameter, a minor redundancy.

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 two-parameter read-only analytics tool with no output schema, the description tells the agent what data shape to expect and how to constrain the window. Remaining gaps (empty-state behavior, whether completion rate is returned as a fraction or percent) are small but real.

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 100%, so both parameters are already documented. The description restates the days semantics ('last N days') without adding format, timezone, or boundary details, 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?

The description names a specific verb ('Get') and a specific resource ('a form's analytics') and enumerates the exact metrics returned: views, starts, submissions, completion rate. That distinguishes it from get-form-tool, which returns the form definition rather than metrics, though it never names the sibling explicitly.

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?

'Optionally limited to the last N days' gives context for the optional parameter but no guidance on when to prefer this tool over list-submissions-tool for detailed data, nor any prerequisites such as whether the form must be published before stats exist. Usage is only implied.

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