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 useful domain context (these are abandoned/Save-&-Resume entries, not finished submissions) and cites the underlying endpoint, but says nothing about return shape, pagination, or the volume of abandoned records, which would be the valuable extra beyond annotations.

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 clauses front-load the resource definition and the conceptual disambiguation, then supply the API path. There is no filler, though the raw endpoint reference is of limited value to an agent.

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 11 parameters and no output schema, the description identifies the resource but leaves return content and pagination unstated. It is adequate for selecting the tool, but for a high-parameter list operation it could say more about what each partial-submission record contains.

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 11 parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds only 'same filters as submissions,' which conveys parity but no parameter-specific syntax or defaults 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?

The description states a specific verb+resource ('List entries respondents started but did not finish') and defines the unusual domain term 'partial submission' via Save & Resume / abandoned, clearly distinguishing it from complete submissions. It does not name the sibling formstack_list_form_submissions directly, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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' gives implied usage context and tells the agent that filtering semantics carry over, but there is no explicit when-to-use / when-not-to-use guidance or a named alternative for retrieving completed entries.

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