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

The readOnlyHint=true annotation already establishes this is a safe read operation, so the bar is lower. The description adds useful semantic context about what the records represent (abandoned / Save & Resume entries), but says nothing about pagination behavior, result ordering defaults, or data-volume expectations for a tool exposing 11 filter parameters.

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 with zero filler; the core purpose and its distinguishing scope are front-loaded before the endpoint reference, which is useful for traceability but placed last.

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 read-only list tool with fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers what the records are and that filtering mirrors the submissions endpoint, which is enough to call it correctly. Return format is left unstated, but that omission is minor given the schema carries the parameter burden.

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 every one of the 11 parameters is already documented with type, range, and format details. The description's claim that filters mirror the submissions endpoint adds framing but no syntax or value semantics beyond what the schema provides. 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 (List) and resource (entries respondents started but did not finish), and clarifies scope with the parenthetical '(Save & Resume / abandoned)'. This cleanly distinguishes it from the sibling formstack_list_form_submissions, since partial vs. completed is the only difference an agent needs.

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?

"With the same filters as submissions" implies the tool is invoked like the submissions listing, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of when to prefer this over search_submissions or count_form_submissions, and no stated prerequisites. Usage is inferable but not spelled out.

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