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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true; the description adds genuinely new context: it does not fetch answers, it reads totalResponses from GET /forms/{formId}/submissions with limit=1 (i.e., a single cheap request, no pagination). That is useful beyond the safety hint, though it says nothing about auth or rate 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 tight sentence front-loads the purpose, then the filter equivalence, then the implementation detail. No filler, and the example questions are short and directly actionable.

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, the description still tells the agent what comes back (a submission count derived from totalResponses) and how it is obtained, which is everything needed to call and interpret this tool. All six parameters are covered by the schema plus the filter-equivalence note.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds cross-tool meaning by telling the agent the filters are identical to fillout_list_submissions and enumerates the filter families (date range, status, search). It omits includePreview, so it does not fully mirror the schema.

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 (count a form's submissions) plus the key scope qualifier: it applies the same filters as fillout_list_submissions but 'without pulling the answers'. This lets an agent distinguish it from fillout_list_submissions and fillout_export_submissions 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?

Names the sibling whose filter semantics it shares and gives concrete triggering questions ('how many responses this week?', 'how many partial submissions?'), which pins down when to reach for it. It stops short of an explicit 'use fillout_list_submissions instead when you need the answer data', so the exclusion 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.