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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the key trait that the fill code is not consumed by this call, and it explains the surrounding workflow constraints (gather missing answers, show everything, submit only with consent). It does not mention permissions, rate limits, or error behavior, which leaves some gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 short and front-loaded: the read action and return contents come first, followed by the behavioral caveat and workflow instructions. Every sentence contributes something useful, though the workflow guidance could be slightly tighter.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must convey what comes back, and it does: questions, types, limits, and next steps. Combined with the non-consuming behavior and the submit-only-after-consent guidance, an agent has enough to call this correctly before reaching for submit_fill. Minor omissions around permissions and error handling keep it from a 5.

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% and already documents that fill_token is a string starting with fil_. The description reinforces that the token is a 'fill code' used to locate the form and clarifies that reading does not consume it, which adds some meaning beyond the schema. However, it does not add format or validation details beyond what the schema already provides, 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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Read the form behind a fill code,' and enumerates what is returned ('questions, types, limits and what to do next'). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling submit_fill, which is the action taken only after the form is read and answers are confirmed.

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 gives a clear usage sequence: ask the person for missing answers, show them everything, and submit only after explicit consent. The statement 'Does not use up the code' also signals this is the safe, non-consuming read step before submission. It stops short of explicitly naming submit_fill as the alternative, but the workflow makes the choice clear.

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