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

Annotations supply only destructiveHint=true, so the description carries most of the burden and delivers the key trait: the submission is real, counts toward the form, and fires notification emails, webhooks and integrations. It omits auth/permission requirements and whether the write is reversible, but the side-effect disclosure is exactly the context an agent needs.

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 front-load the action and its consequence, followed by the underlying endpoint reference. No filler; every clause earns its place.

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 should cover what comes back, and it does not — an agent cannot tell whether the created submission ID is returned, which matters for follow-up calls like formstack_get_submission. The write semantics are well covered, but the return-value gap leaves this only minimally complete.

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 five parameters, including the field-value shapes and the pointer to formstack_list_form_fields. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the 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 ("Submit an entry to a form") and immediately scopes it as "on someone's behalf," which distinguishes a real submission from the sibling create_prefill_url that only generates a link. An agent can tell what this does without opening the 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 rather than stated: the description makes clear this is a committing write, which helps an agent decide between it and non-committing options, but it never names an alternative (e.g. prefill URL, update_submission) or states prerequisites. Adequate but leaves routing to inference.

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