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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, open-world), and the description adds real value on top: it discloses pagination behavior, that the response is a page of Entries plus TotalRows, and the underlying GET endpoint. It stops short of stating auth requirements 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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns and who/when/where it captures, followed by filtering options. The trailing GET path is an implementation detail but cheap to include.

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 12 optional parameters and no output schema, the description does enough: it names the returned shape (page of Entries with TotalRows) and explains pagination chaining. Only minor gaps remain, such as guidance on combining from_date/to_date with order_by when both are supplied.

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 the schema already documents all 12 parameters including the order_by date-filter coupling and the Flat/Rich/Raw answer formats. The description's parameter sentence largely restates those fields rather than adding syntax or edge-case guidance, so baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Search submitted form entries') plus a parenthetical clarifying what an entry is, and separates it from sibling form tools like get_form/list_forms which retrieve the form definition rather than submissions.

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 implies when to use it (to find submitted entries filtered by form, version, or date range) but never states when NOT to use it or names an alternative — e.g. it does not say to use get_form for the form definition or search_tasks for tasks.

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