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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the 7-day lookback cap and the per-day breakdown shape, which is useful, but says nothing about rate limits, pagination, or what happens when start_date and lookback_period interact.

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?

Two tight sentences: the capability and window come first, then the API mapping. No filler and nothing buried.

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 usefully discloses the return shape ('per-day breakdown'), which is the key missing structured information. A little more on how start_date and lookback_period combine would make it fully self-sufficient.

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 all three parameters are documented in the schema, including the max-7 constraint. The description only restates the 7-day window and adds no syntax or interaction detail beyond that baseline.

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 (count) and resource (a form's submissions) plus scope (per-day breakdown, lookback up to 7 days). The 'count' framing inherently separates it from formstack_list_form_submissions, though it never names that sibling 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 implied by the description — you call it when you need aggregate counts rather than raw submissions — but there is no explicit when/when-not statement or named alternative such as formstack_list_form_submissions or formstack_search_submissions.

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