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

Adds substantial behavioral detail beyond annotations: login requirement, per-call cap, per-session independence, and state transition rules (delivered is terminal and cannot be overwritten by failed; failed maps to DELIVERY_FAILED; abandoned without note is a no-op). Annotations already cover safety profile, so this goes well beyond structured metadata.

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?

A single dense sentence with semicolons, front-loading the login requirement and usage condition. It is efficient with no filler, but the density and the unexplained term 'applied' slightly reduce readability.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, it covers auth, usage, limits, state transitions, and alternatives well. It still omits error/response handling and the meaning of 'applied', so it is not completely exhaustive.

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%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds that the note parameter determines whether an abandoned status takes effect and maps status values to internal states, which is useful beyond the schema. It also repeats some schema details (changedKeys only keys, max 10), so it is not a full 5.

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 states a specific verb ('report') and resource ('external form delivery results'), and explicitly distinguishes from siblings: submit_signup only archives and does not represent source-site registration. Despite dense phrasing, an agent can identify exactly what the tool does.

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?

Explicitly says to call only when the user personally reports external form results, gives a per-call limit of 10, and names alternatives: submit_signup only archives, and update_my_signup_profile should be used for answer changes. This is complete when/when-not/alternative guidance.

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