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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is already covered; the description adds real value beyond that by disclosing the return shape (id, created_on, person_id) and the fact that responses are keyed by form field_id when details=true. It also names the underlying Breeze endpoint (GET /api/forms/list_form_entries). It stops short of 5 because it says nothing about pagination, ordering, or result limits.

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 no filler; the core behavior (list submissions for one form) is front-loaded before the details flag and the sibling reference. Slightly run-on with parenthetical nesting, but every clause carries information.

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 no output schema and only two parameters, the description usefully compensates by naming the returned fields and explaining the field_id keying, plus a sibling pointer for resolving those keys. It is close to complete for a simple read tool, with pagination/limits being the main omission.

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 in the schema and the baseline is 3. The description clarifies the semantics of details=true (each entry's responses keyed by field_id) and implicitly that form_id is the numeric form identifier, but adds no format or constraint detail beyond that.

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+resource ('Submissions to one form') and enumerates the returned fields (id, created_on, person_id), which is more precise than the title alone. It also explicitly cross-references the sibling breeze_list_form_fields for interpreting field_id keys, so an agent can distinguish it from that sibling without opening either 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?

Usage is implied by the description: use this to fetch submissions for a form, and use breeze_list_form_fields to resolve field ids. There is no explicit statement of when NOT to use it (e.g., use breeze_list_forms first to obtain a form_id), so the routing guidance stops short of a 4.

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