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

Annotations already indicate idempotentHint and destructiveHint absent, and the description adds valuable behavioral context: the WRITE-scoped key requirement, the specific public_url usage rule (do not construct yourself), and the possibility of a plan-limit failure. These go beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 compact yet complete, front-loading the purpose and then providing necessary constraints (auth, URL usage, failure mode) in a logical order. Every sentence earns its place with no fluff or repetition.

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 simple single-parameter action with annotations present, the description covers all essential information: prerequisites, return shape, URL handling, and a known failure case. An agent has everything needed to call the tool correctly without further clarification.

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 schema already provides 100% coverage with a description for form_id, so the description does not need to elaborate. It simply restates the parameter name and type, adding no extra meaning beyond what the schema supplies. The baseline of 3 applies because schema coverage is high.

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 the verb 'publish' and the resource 'form', along with the effect: making it live at a public URL and accepting responses. It is distinct from sibling tools like unpublish by its action, but it does not explicitly name alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

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 only guidance is the prerequisite 'Requires a WRITE-scoped API key', which is a condition, not a when-to-use instruction. It does not say when to prefer this over other tools (e.g., for a draft form), nor does it mention when not to use it. No exclusions or alternatives are provided.

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