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

Annotations carry the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true), so the bar is lower. The description usefully discloses the 7-day maximum lookback and that results come as a per-day breakdown, but says nothing about permissions/scopes 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?

One compact sentence that front-loads the verb, resource, and output shape, followed by a short endpoint reference. No filler, though the raw endpoint string is marginally redundant with the tool name.

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 read-only aggregate tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description covers operation, scope limit, and return shape (per-day breakdown). Nothing needed for correct invocation is missing.

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 form_id, start_date, and lookback_period including the 7-day maximum. The description only restates the lookback constraint, adding no new parameter semantics beyond 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') and adds scope detail: a per-day breakdown over a lookback window capped at 7 days. This distinguishes it in spirit from list_form_submissions and search_submissions, though it never names the alternative explicitly.

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 only implied by the aggregate nature of 'count' versus sibling listing tools. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over formstack_list_form_submissions or formstack_search_submissions, nor any stated prerequisites.

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