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

Goes well beyond the readOnlyHint/destructiveHint annotations by disclosing ordering (newest first), the presence of personal data, and an explicit prompt-injection policy for the returned visitor text. That injection warning is behaviorally critical and unavailable anywhere else in the structured fields.

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?

Capabilities, filtering, and privacy are front-loaded in the first two sentences, with the injection warning following. The security guidance is valuable but consumes roughly half the text; it earns its place but could be tightened slightly.

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 annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema, the description covers purpose, ordering, privacy handling, and injection resistance well. The only gap is the unread parameter and any hint about result shape or pagination, both minor for a simple list tool.

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 the schema already documents form, site, limit, and unread. The description restates form narrowing and the limit default/range but adds no new semantics, and never mentions the unread filter. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource plus ordering semantics: "List the form submissions (inquiries) the site received, newest first." It also clarifies what a submission is (an inquiry) and how scoping works, so an agent can distinguish it from get_submission or list_forms without opening the 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?

Gives clear operative guidance: fetch only what you need, summarise personal information, and use write tools only on explicit user request. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling retrieval tools such as get_submission or list_forms, so the alternative-selection guidance is implied rather than stated.

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